Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ttd_76 t1_j458pt9 wrote

I am a Nietzsche hater, so probably biased. But I don't view him as the Father of anything.

I used to hate Nietzsche a lot more, because I think his writing is a mess. But as I have gotten older I appreciate him more than I used to.

I still think his philosophy is trash as a whole. But now I see him more as a guy who was pretty smart and very creative and also had a way of writing that captured the imagination. Some of his stuff was where philosophy was heading anyway, and someone else would have said it or had already said but Nietzsche wrote it cooler. And some of his stuff is cool ideas that do not form a coherent whole and were poorly expounded on. But he did have a shit ton of cool ideas.

It makes him very thought provoking and a good seed planter. And easy for the philosophers (both good and bad) who followed to borrow bits and pieces from him.

So I see him as influential to a whole ton of modern thought-- maybe more than any other philosopher-- while at the same time the father of none.

0

Embarrassed_Honey606 t1_j4iaj80 wrote

Not a single coherent argument against any of Nietzsche‘s ideas.

2

ttd_76 t1_j4ijcmv wrote

If you want coherent arguments, why are you reading Nietzsche?

To me, he's a concept guy. Like Will to Power. Is is it just a metaphorical concept or does it actually exist? If it exists, does it exist metaphysically or as a psychological concept? Nietszche never clarifies. Eternal recurrence is another one. There are dozens.

That said, will to power is an interesting and potentially useful concept. Which is why I think Nietzsche influenced a lot of schools of thought. He's got a shit ton of concepts that allow people to pick and choose which ones work and how to interpret them. But it's up to those others to do the heavy lifting.

0

Embarrassed_Honey606 t1_j4ketzm wrote

It is dishonest to claim that Nietzsche did not formulate coherent arguments.

2

Embarrassed_Honey606 t1_j4prvtv wrote

A short list of scholars that disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of „Nietzsche’s arguments being incoherent“:

  • Brian Leiter‘s „Nietzsche on Morality“;
  • Stegmaiers „Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral“
  • Christian Niemeyer‘s „Nietzsche“
  • De Gruyter‘s „Klassiker Auslegen: Nietzsche“
  • Raffnsøe‘s „Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral“
  • Rüdiger Safranski‘s „Nietzsche“.
  • Ernst Behler‘s „Derrida-Nietzsche Nietzsche-Derrida“
  • Kaufmann‘s works

And lastly, some ReAl PhIlOsOpHeRs:

Derrida Deleuze Foucault

I can go on, if you really want to die on that hill.

1