Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ttd_76 t1_j4ijcmv wrote

Reply to comment by Embarrassed_Honey606 in Nietzsche is better understood as the Father of Psychoanalysis than Existentialism; his philosophy has two components: the diagnosis of our culture's Decadence (under the Ascetic Ideal) and a prescription for health in the Dionysian Counter-Ideal by thelivingphilosophy

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