kirillov

, I appreciate you, but I've read almost all of his works. And more than that, I've come from the tradition from which Dostoevsky came.

I've used Samsara as analogy, not literally. 1. Life, in general, is eternal. Not life of one particular individual, but in general. 2. Life is suffer...

, appreciate you for your response. For me, life (in general) isn't finite. In Buddhist word's, Samsara will make another turn. And there's situations...

I said that I'm not satisfied, I didn't say that I don't like his solution. And what makes you think that his solution wasn't helpful? I think that th...

yup, that's what fascinates me... People just want to fight with each other on who better understands and reads N. Thank you all.

My post is about a solution to my problem. I don't care about correct understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy (it's silly), I interpreted him in the w...

You're right, but that's why I wrote "some of his views". I think Artur was a great philosopher and had many good points. But, at least, he was wrong ...

Yup, for me Schopenhauer is right (to some degree) about metaphysics and life itself, but not in his way of dealing with it. I really gonna take a clo...

Absolutely, for early Nietzsche. Affirmation of life through creation of illusions (Der Wahn). But he rejected this idea because it veils life, not af...

, I appreciate you for your answer. I did try. His "leap of faith" is not for me either. I just can't. Though I didn't read him entirely. Maybe I shou...

Oh, I didn't know that there was the truth. How did you verify that religion (what is a religion?) failed to find the truth?

For Nietzsche, I would take "The Birth of Tragedy" first. Nietzsche himself said that one should start with his earlier works, and then go with later ...