by Krull wrote:Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist by Walter Kaufmann is a pretty good introduction (to Nietzsche, obviously). R.J. Hollingdale's biography is pretty good too. Both of these suffer from trying to "rescue" the big N, whose reputation wasn't very flattering at that point. However I belive his thought needs to be put into some kind of context wrt his life and times, and Kaufmann/Hollingdale happen to write very well.
Hollingdale is a dubious scholar - especially when it comes to biographical aspects -- consider him on syphilis, where he seems concerned with depicting Nietzsche as some playboy interested in making subtle allusions to the reader about his sex life.. I'm not a big fan of Kaufmann's book because it is as you said mainly about rescuing Nietzsche, not about providing a mature unbiased understanding. Kaufmann certainly projects his own ideas unto Nietzsche.
I remember the Michael Tanner introduction being shit, but not why. There have been so many introductions now I'm unable to keep up with all the different perspectives and their errors as they are published. Still, can't harm to read them all and read through the lines, but in that case, one might as well read Nietzsche - birth of tragedy isn't bad.
However, I wouldn't discourage people from reading wikipedia a short summary of Nietzsche's works, and picking out which one sounds more interesting and take off from there.
ChildInAZoo wrote:Good grief! This thread is entirely too Nietzsche centred. I did three philosophy degrees without having to read any Nietzsche. He is far from the end-all and be-all of philosophy. Far, far from it.
Few philosophy degrees require you to read Nietzsche. That said, rejecting the idea that it's the 'end-all and be-all' in philosophy when it has not been suggested by anyone here reeks of weasely nonsense. In other words, I don't doubt your three degrees, but -- as always -- what values they instil in a person.
What kind...? As the politicians say, "I couldn't possibly comment." 
