If you liked what he did to God, you'll love Nietzsche's take on morality. The rich invented "good" and "bad" because they never suffered, and the poor and downtrodden invented "good" and "evil" because they needed a concept for the really horrible things that happened to them. Nietzche tries to unscientifically trace the evolution of morality. Reall fun. ( )

Of all the books by or about Nietzsche, I think this particular edition of the Genealogy would be the best place for the novice to start. The introduction by Clark (a very well regraded Nietzsche scholar) is excellent and provides a workable framework for interpreting a text (and an author) that can often be difficult to decipher.

The scholarly apparatus is exhaustive; the editors provide end notes that cover nearly every page in the original text and help the reader to make sense of Nietzsche's sometimes unclear allusions and provide voluminous biographic and bibliographic detail covering both Nietzsche and the interlocutors he mentions in the text (as well as a few he merely alludes to).

As for the text itself, I think it is notable primarily for the genealogical analysis of the concepts of good/right-bad/wrong and for a glimpse of Nietzsche's "perspectivalist" epistemology in the third section.

These views have been highly influential (although not among philosophers as such) over the past century and anyone that wishes to understand the course and trajectory of 20th century thought should be aware of them. Nietzsche is a master stylist, so the reading is fun as well as thought provoking.

Of course, the central question, considering Nietzsche qua philosopher, is this: Does Nietzsche get thing right?

I think it's pretty clear that the answer is "no". Although his castigation of scientific atheism as an extension (perhaps the highest extension) of religious asceticism shows depth and brilliance, he doesn't ever give us any solid arguments for thinking that truth itself hinges on particular standards of evaluation. Nietzsche seems to me to be skeptical of the idea of truth as correspondence (the standard view) because it situates truth outside of life. It makes truth something that transcends individual human beings. Perhaps this is true, and given Nietzsche's rejection of any and all transcendent things it makes sense that he'd want to reject truth conceived of in this way. What isn't clear is that he CAN do this, that is, that his view is warranted. The fact that the correspondence of theory of truth has implications that Nietzsche finds repulsive is no reason for thinking that it's false.

Furthermore, without some notion of truth as correspondence, it's not clear that his earlier critique of moral concepts has any real bite. ( )

Had not read Nietzsche in a while and this book has renewed my interests. I am hoping to read some more of his writings soon. ( )

Hey you know what them Christians really piss me of walking about the place claiming all these absolutes of whats good and bad. Morality wasn't set in stone it evolved, there were different views before them and there sure as hell can be different views after them. ( )