Quote (Skinned @ Aug 15 2017 10:30am)
Nietzsche is hard because he uses the aphorism.
Beyond good and evil, genealogy of morals, the gay science, birth of tragedy are all more straightforward.
This one deals with the eternal reoccurance a lot. A lot of zarathrustra informed Freud and the work he did a lot. And Wittgenstein. I think Deleuze is the first person to treat his stuff systematically like coherent philosophy.
It's not that I'm confused by his style (it's a very upfront book), I just don't feel like it engages intellectually with the reader. Do his other books offer more rationalization or defense of the ideas presented within, or are they all in the aphoristic style?