What's wrong with Nietzsche's philosophy from a modern perspective?

Nothing's really "wrong" with Nietzsche from a modern perspective. His ideas are
still taught and much studied.
I can tell you what I don't like about them, but that's not the same thing. The
enterprise of modern philosophy isn't about trying to reach some kind of philoso
phical consensus. It's about exploring ideas, by any and all means available. If
the ideas are considered to be thought-provoking, then it's fit philosophy.
My problems with Niezsche center around the fact that I don't really know what h
is philosophy is. Ideas are brought up in one book and then not incorporated int
o others. His fondness for the dramatic flair makes it difficult to parse the di
fference between metaphor, aphorism, and rigor. His ideas are all over the philo
sophical map and poorly integrated with the work of other philosophers, making i
t difficult to draw any kind of broader perspective.
What this adds up to, for me, is that his work is more interesting in pieces tha
n it is in the whole. He's infinitely quotable, but when I try to dig in for an
elaboration of the ideas, I can never get any traction on it. They provoke thoug
hts but also seem shallow; the thoughts they provoke never take me any place int
eresting.
In philosophical terms, this is my problem, not Nietzsche's. Conceivably I could
devote a lot more time to it and find more of value; his work is so extensive a
nd broad that many philosophers can and do devote a lifetime of work to it. But
I find it unsatisfying and, from a modern philosophical perspective, that is als
o my right.

I'm very fond of Nietzsche. I've studied his stuff extensively and translated so
me of it.
Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher from a modern perspective. Unless he was the firs
t philosopher from a modern perspective, except that a lot of philosophers haven
't noticed yet.
I call Nietzsche the punk rocker of philosophy. He did something that was necess
ary to do for philosophy (especially German philosophy), which had become mutual
ly congratulatory and stodgy and trite. It needed to be broken up, and Nietzsche
did that very well. It might not seem so important these days, because Nietzsch
e already did it, but somebody had to do it. People didn't (and still don't) lik
e Nietzsche because they like the conservatism, the tenure and the tweeds and th
e self-congratulation.
I can only think of one concept of his that is philosophical in the modern sense
. That is the idea of the Eternal Recurrence, which is 1) wrong, and 2) rather s
tupid. But I don't read Nietzsche looking for A Philosophy . I think people who do
are wasting their time. I read him to find out all the questions that should be
asked of any philosophy, at any time, and the questions can get a bit ugly.
I recently posted a definition of "morality" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of P
hilosophy:
The term morality can be used either
descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, woul
d be put forward by all rational persons.
That seems all nice and pat. Morality is a code, so we don't have to worry our p
retty little heads with what else it might be. And we can be good impartial litt
le observers and just write about it, or else we could be normative about it in
which case it's all rational and shit.
Now, if someone wants to say that they disagree with Nietzsche's specific conclu
sions about noble and slave morality and who's responsible for it, I have no pro
blem with that. In fact, I quite agree. It's pretty simplistic a model, and ther
e is certainly a lot more to it. Which is the point. There is more, not less. If
we ever are going to figure out this morality stuff (including why it makes peo
ple do such terrible things), we have to start by cutting through the complacent
bullshit that the holy Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, amongst others, wou
ld like to define into existence. The fact that Nietzsche already blew a crack i
n it with a rather compelling story makes it all that much easier for us moderns
. Martin Luther King thought a hell of a lot about Nietzsche when developing his
morality. He wasn't a Nietzchean (nor am I, and I think those who think they ar
e miss the point), but it sure gave him something to think about.
Though Nietzsche wasn't a fan of science, the crack he made opens up at least th
e possibility of looking at these traditionally philosophical issues with a scie
ntific bent, that is, by looking at the evidence and not just assuming what we'd
like people to think about us. Maybe Nietzsche didn't affect philosophy much (w
ell, except for Wittgenstein and maybe the existentialists and postmodernists),
but he sure as shit did pave the way for modern anthropology and psychology and
sociology, grudging though they are in admitting it.

Nietzsche's philosophy is post-modern philosophy. He sounded the death knell of

all metaphysical speculation hitherto conducted in western philosophical thought
.
Western philosophers had embraced reason and science, while rejecting religious
explanations of physical events. However those philosophers had ignored and resi
sted hammering down Christian religious morality.
Nietzsche recognized that Christian Morals are on a slippery slope, since scienc
e and reasoning were making the Christian god fall down from its deified pedesta
l throught their constant inquiry.
To prevent this spectre of impending Nihilism from looming large on Europe; for
hitherto Christian Morality could no longer be supported by Christian theology o
f Good and Evil - Nietzeche offers a better morality; the morality of Good and B
ad.
Good is that which increases the feelings of power, discipline, inquiry, ruminat
ion, effect, life and natural instict.
Bad is that which speculates metaphysically in causes, resentment, jealousy, hel
plessness, submission and hopes of better afterlife.
One of the comments by somebody here speaks ill of Nietzsche's myth of eternal r
ecurrence, which I find half baked and unsupported by any explanation.
I want to offer an explanation on behalf of Nietzsche.
Myths and fictions are not essentially bad or useless. The right myths and stori
es can improve one's psychology.
Nietzeche doesn't say Eternal Recurrence is a scientific fact. He offers it as a
myth for the stronger types. Whereas the weak shall want a heavenly afterlife.
The strong shall be more than happy with a world of eternal recurrence. They wo
uld happily live their lives again and over and over again irrespective of wheth
er things were good, bad, just or unjust. They are brave and strong to face it.
Like Sysiphus.
A man ready to believe in such a myth loves Life and Living more than Death and
Godly Afterlife. He is the Ubermensch kind.
This I believe in some small way explains Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence
as a myth for the stronger humanity.
The weaker humanity would believe in gods, day of judgment, heaven and hell and
other old wives' religious tales because they are too weak to accept their life
as it is.
For me, Nietzsche is the most incredible of the philosophers I have ever read.

There are many different ways of looking at many different things. Depending on
the context, considering different perspectives provides insight or answers you
may not have come up with based on your preferred philosophy or perspective. The
re is nothing wrong, per se, with Nietzsche; there is something wrong with only
looking at things through only one lens, as it doesn't provide the full picture.

Nietzsche's view of science is wrong, not only from our perspective, but also by
his own endorsement of perspectivism:
"Science today is a hiding place for every kind of discontent, disbelief, gnawin
g worm, despectio sui, bad conscience---it is the unrest of the lack of ideals,
the suffering from the lack of any great love, the discontent in the face of inv
oluntary contentment."
-- Section 23, Third Essay, Genealogy of Morals
Were our physicists of the 20th century lacking in great passion for their revol
utionary work in quantum mechanics? Did the geneticists work with nonchalance at
investigating the source code of organic life? Were the engineers of the space
program indifferent to the accuracy of their systems modelling and mission contr
ol?
Here, Nietzsche's fire-spitting rhetoric definitely hampered his love of attaini
ng objectivity through multiplication of varying perspectives.

What does Nietzsche get wrong about Socrates?

In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche pens some of the harshest criticism ever dir
ected towards one of the first practitioners of philosophy, Socrates. He tells u
s that Socrates is an ugly plebian, a symptom of a decline in instinct and he ma
rks the beginning of the instincts being turned against the individual by the ty
rant of reason. Socrates' famous daimon is diagnosed as a hallucination, and the
dialectical method, that develops out of Socrates' relationship to the daimon,
is nothing but a form of revenge. Socrates is a man who is opposed to life, and
he invents otherworldly values that turn life into a disease, a pale imitation
of Goodness itself, of Beauty itself, and of the True itself.
It is a very fine piece of writing, witty and entertaining, it locates the missi
on of Nietzsche's book at the beginning of Western Philosophy before he draws th
e shades and shows us how the ideal of the suprasensory world has led us into ce
nturies of error. In this sense it works perfectly, and I think that the point o
f view he expresses in this short passage on Socrates is an important piece of p
hilosophy. Only, it certainly is not the only point of view on Socrates. In fact
, one problem with it is that it treats all of the writings of Plato equally, wh
en it is generally recognized that as Plato got older he more and more used Socr
ates as the mouthpiece for his own ideas. It is debated whether or not Socrates
actually espoused a fully formed philosophy of Ideal Forms. Nietzsche's critique
of Socrates has more to do with Plato, and with generations of interpretations
of Plato, than with Socrates himself.
A more nuanced approach to Socrates occurs in Hannah Arendt's book The Promise o
f Politics; I highly recommend the first section titled Socrates to anyone inter
ested in Socrates. Arendt states "Our tradition of political thought began when
the death of Socrates made Plato despair of polis life and, at the same time, do
ubt certain fundamentals of Socrates' teachings". Socrates, she says, was not co
ncerned with truth, but with doxa which translates to "it appears to me", or to
opinion. Socrates invented a way to examine one's doxa, to engage oneself in con
versation and examine one's beliefs for contradiction. He then extended to this
process of speaking to oneself into a manner of speaking with a friend. Dialecti
cs is a political act par excellence wherein the way that things appear "to me"
is not negated by absolute truth. Dialectics is not a way to convince people of
a truthful way of seeing, but preserves the importance of seeming, which is the
only reality there was for the Greeks. Plato in turn rejects the importance of a
ppearances, of seeming - and this is really what Nietzsche's scathing critique o
f Socrates is about, the negation of the appearing world for some higher truth b
ehind, or beyond reality.
Arendt locates the wisdom of Socrates before the schism of appearance and realit
y, and she continues in this vein to draw from the daimon of Socrates and the di
alectic method a basis for an ethical theory which she continues to develop in h
er other writings. The ability to speak to oneself, to engage in solitude, to av
oid contradiction with oneself: No one wants to be a murderer because then they
must live with a murderer. This is not the same as an imperfect approach to Good
ness itself, this does not condemn life for some otherworldly value.
...but don't just take my word for it read Promise of Politics for yourself!

What is a simple explanation of Nietzsche's ideas and philosophy?

From Beyond Good and Evil to Thus Spoke Zarathustra
God is dead
Because God is dead, nihilism takes control lest one creates new values
One to create the new values will have to look beyond good and evil, as no one k
nows yet what is good and evil. He called for transvaluation of values.
One who creates new values is called ubermensch (overman / superman)
A test against nihilism is ubermensch's understanding and acceptance of "the ete
rnal return" - that even if life is the same, he conducts life joyously. Meanin
g self-similar life is preferable over non-existence.
The last man is the opposite of the ubermensch - The last man wants comfort and
alms, whereas ubermensch seeks out hardship and creates new values
Nietzsche calls one to seek out hardship and pain, and also states that "all tha
t is called evil by the good must come together so that the truth can be born."
Nietzsche said that only through hardship, one can achieve something great. Beca
use of that Nietzsche thought that evading pain, like drinking alcohol or believ
ing in a religion was the worst thing a person could do for himself.
Nietzsche was staunchly against nihilists. Be believed that it was a malady of s
oul to be a nihilist.
Nietzsche felt that those who are called 'good' were worse than the nihilists. T
hat certainty of being 'good' meant that no new values or greatness can be creat
ed. Thus perpetuating the Last Man.
Nietzsche believed Schopenhauer's Will to Live was insufficient explanation of w
hy man created things. He believed that much more important impulse in man, Will
to Power, compelled man to create. He essentially tried to answer the question
"why are there starving artists?" Not as a joke mind you, great artists and writ
ers in 1880s actually did starve and go crazy. Artists, Nietzsche observed, had
almost a contempt for personal well-being and health. To Nietzsche, impulse to c
reate was the overriding necessity to man, rather than impulse to live.
Nietzsche the Dionysian
Nietzsche was an anti-rationalist. He believed that the experiment of rationalis
m since the Enlightenment has been detrimental to the artful impulses of man. He
opined that he is Dionysian, instead of Apollonian.
His sister, and authorship of book the Will to Power
Many scholars are skeptical of claim that Friedrich Nietzsche wrote The Will To
Power. Nietzsche was at his non-functioning state by then and the editing and au
thoring was probably done by his sister, Elisabeth Nietzsche, a proto-Nazi.
Nietzsche Contra Wagner
Nietzsche hated Wagnerism (ie. a manufactured German folk history, and associate
d notion of grandeur), and what it stood for so much that he wrote a paper on it
, Nietzsche Contra Wagner. Nietzsche in fact prefered French culture over German
culture, and hated anti-semitism, even though he felt that Jews , just like his
assessment of Christians, had what he called "slave mentality" - i.e. exhibitin
g ressentiment (hostility) to those who create new values.
I hope my incredibly brief, and possibly bastardized, summary of Nietzsche's phi
losophy helped you understand him and his philosophy better.

There is no singular explanation. He had many major ideas and even more minor on
es too. He is seen as a continuation of the Greek philosophers of Ancient and Cl
assical Greece; from the Pre-Socratic philosophers to Aristotle. I think his mo
st easily approachable book is Human, All Too Human (Penguin Classics), which r
eally just has aphorisms (~axioms), most a few sentences long and others a few p
aragraphs. I can fully recommend Yalom's book When Nietzsche Wept to get an idea
of what he was like as a person. He had grand ideas but lived simply. So he bel
ieved he was writing for a future audience who could fully understand and even l
ive them (the overman). This overman would out do modern man so much that he wou
ld go over the man of the day. (Edit: I can also recommend another book, A Nietz
sche Reader (Penguin Classics), this one has excerpts from all his works (even t
he posthumously published The Will to Power).
A common quote taken out of context is "God is Dead" but the rest of the quote i
s "God remains dead. And we have killed him." He alludes to mankind's successes
in understanding and changing the world and leaving behind the old world of the
supernatural and superstition. And so he is trying to tell us we must come up wi
th a new understanding/philosophy of the world lest we "we ourselves not become
gods simply to appear worthy of it?" Basically, we should not see ourselves as g
ods. In context of his overman, this makes more sense, we should really try to c
ome up with at better understanding of world rather than just recreating the old
.
The overman would also hold values that we characterize of both Apollo (logic, o
rder, thoughtfulness) and Dionysus (Chaos, Dance, action). Kazantzakis' Zorba th
e Greek was written in accord with this philosophy. Two men, one Apollonian and
the other Dionysian coming together throughout the book culminating with them be
coming "one" by dancing Sirtaki together.
Another misunderstanding was that he was an anti-Semite. His sister who held all
rights to his books tried to gain favor from Hitler and so was willing to basta
rdize his writings. Nietzsche had been institutionalized by 1890 and no furthur
works were produced. He died in 1900. Another example is his break with his frie
nd the great composer Wagner. Wagner was a big influence on him as Schopenhauer
was on Wagner. Nietzche felt very strongly that Wagner was basically nuts with a
nti-semitism. To this day Wagner's music is not played in Israel for that reason
and that the Nazis played his music in the concentration camps as many Jews suf
fered horribly.
He did get some things wrong though, mostly about women. Even many present day t
ranslators will add a footnote about "his ramblings" on the subject when transla
ting the relevant section.

Let s start here:

Throughout the longest period of human history the value or non-value of an action
was inferred from its consequences; the action itself was not taken into consid
eration.
-Beyond Good and Evil
He noticed that, until recently (in mankind s existence), actions were judged by w
hat resulted from them. If you were trying to help your friend, but ended up mak
ing his situation worse, the old school would judge you negatively. He called th
is the pre-moral period of mankind.
Then:
In the last ten thousand years, on the other hand, on certain large portions of
the earth, one has gradually got so far, that one no longer lets the consequence
s of an action, but its origin, decide with regard to its worth
-Page 24
So, he now calls this the moral period of mankind.
This origin or intention of an action is indoctrinated into people as being more imp
ortant than its consequences. The same act of trying to help your friend now is
supported, even if it makes his situation worse, because your intentions were goo
d.
But, morals by themselves were not good enough to convince everyone, he noted. I
t didn t carry enough weight for people to be told what good and bad were they neede
d more.
Insert religion:
 during the moral epoch of mankind, they sacrificed to their God the strongest the
strongest instincts they possessed, their nature
-Page 39
Nietzsche argued that morals were then assigned to an omnipotent, omniscient God
. God was routinely justified to exist, and that there was a truth to morals that
we all must abide by lest be struck down by the all-powerful God.
A very large subset of society believed what he argued was a lie: morals. Morals
were made up by a master class, or people who were consciously making informed de
cisions, to influence a slave class, or people who were unconsciously following th
e herd.
The master class would always have control over the slave class because they mad
e decisions based on facts, and things they could observe with their own eyes. T
he slave class would constantly be searching for freedom, but they would do so at
their own peril unaware that they had no idea how to adequately define freedom.
Their true freedom might have been to be their animal instinct: the Will to Power
, as Nietzsche put it. However, religion and morals made acting as an animal extr
emely taboo ( we aren t animals, we re people ). As such, the slave class would never ha
ve their freedom as long as they continued to be controlled by the master class:
You want, if possible, to do away with suffering; and we? it really seems that we
would rather have it increased and worse than it has ever been! Well-being, as y
ou understand it is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an end; a condition which
at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible and makes his destruction desirabl
e!
-Page 93
He goes on further describing aspects of the slave class, as such:
The vain person rejoices over every good opinion which he hears about himself (q
uite apart of the point of view of its usefulness, and equally regardless of its
truth or falsehood).
-Page 130
In other words, the master class made up these things called good and evil, which
can t be shown to exist, and then they promote good and denounce evil to the slave
class. In this way, the slave class has completely missed the point: their acti
ons are no longer judged by what happens as a result rather by how others view the
m as good or evil men ( at least I did the right thing ).
It is noted, then, that reason flies out the window people (the slave class) no lo
nger use reasons to make decisions, they use morals.
There is a lot more that Nietzsche talks about (see: eternal recurrence), but th
is is his chief work frankly rather genius considering the influences around him a
t the time he wrote it.
What can we learn from Nietzsche?
One thing Nietzsche acknowledged is that anybody who is in the slave class can de
cide to be in the master class whenever they want to. If you feel yourself subjec
t to other people trying to put you in a category, a box, or a suppressed state
of mind, you can simply decide you want to ignore them and become a member of th
e master class.
In other words, we are all capable of making our own decisions, but the vast maj
ority of us do not do so. Most of us continue to let other people influence us b
ased on their opinions of us, which are entirely inconsequential with regards to
our life. Being a good or bad person has nothing to do with getting whatever we wan
t, but we are made to believe it because of society s dogmatic definitions, Nietzs
che says.
It is the fear of insecure people which rubs off on us, to make us behave in a w
ay that they would like us to behave. That s what I m saying. Few realizations are m
ore useful in this life.
Even further, we can notice that, likely, without religion, society couldn t have
become what it is today. After all, compared to evolution, morals are a very new
thing that mankind invented to suppress the instincts which are dangerous to so
ciety like: adultery, murder, rape, stealing, etc. Society is constantly remindi
ng other people to be good to each other, and really bad shit still happens.
These instincts are naturally in us, and morals were a way to keep them out of t
he way of a functioning society. By having people give in to the almighty God, i
t made them more fearful than ever. You fear man slightly, you fear an omnipoten
t, omniscient God infinitely.
In my opinion, Nietzsche is easily in the top 5 philosophers of all time. Not ev
erything he says is completely correct (I have good reasons to disprove eternal
recurrence), but he is one of the most truly logical philosophers I have ever re
ad.

Nietzsche's philosophy is quite complex but aphoristic and so easy to absorb in

small chunks, each of which seems fairly independent of the others (as if Non s
equiturs) yet also intricately connected. No summary or commentary really can d
o it justice. But there are many great philosophers who have done their best lik
e the multi-volume Heidegger study, or Deleuze's book on Nietzsche and Philosoph
y and many others. To entertain producing a bullet list such as:
Eternal Return
Will to Power
This really does not convey anything worthwhile, and the reason is that Nietzsch
e alone of the philosophers roots his entire philosophy in metaphors. And so the
real essence of his philosophy is to think through the implications of these me
taphors. For instance:
Truth is a Woman
If we listen to Nietzsche himself he said his greatest discovery was the Value o
f values. He was the first to ask whether Value had any value of its own. And hi
s ultimate answer was that the Values had values to the extent that they promote
d the viability of life. Even very negative and seemingly crazy values like thos
e of Christianity could be seen as having some value in this regard, even if it
promoted life in a very backhanded way by denying it.
So rather than reading my summary, or anyone else, I suggest you get one of his
books like Twilight of the Idols for instance and read an aphorism, the think ab
out it, then read another one, and then think about it, etc until you have absor
bed the whole book. Then move on to the next one until you have read everything,
and then it is time to circle back around and read the first one again, one aph
orism at a time, looking for the metaphors and pondering them. Basically Nietzsc
he reverses everyone else. Where Schopenhaur is depressed about the human condit
ion, Nietzsche is delighted. When Hegel says that only slaves can have self-cons
ciousness, he sets out to define a morality and self-consciousness for the noble
s. Where Wagner breaks down and Christianizes his Ring Saga Nietzsche hold true
to Indo-European roots. Where everyone venerates Socrates, Nietzsche says that p
hilosophy was the worst disaster for mankind and goes back to the Pre-Socratics
as his idea of what a philosopher should be thinking about. And we only have fra
gments from the Pre-Socratics so he produces Aphorisms that could be fragments o
f philosophy. Where everyone else thinks the Western domination of the world is
bringing civilization to savages, Nietzsche sees the deeper barbarism of the Eur
opeans. He identifies the basic sickness of the Western Worldview as Nihilism. H
e goes deep, and then is dissatisfied and goes deeper still. And when that is no
t enough he dives into the core of the worldview and looks what Conrad calls the
Terror of it in the face, and then he takes it on, all of it, and claims that i
t is his ownmost possibility. He knows that deep down he is the blond beast. And
that is why he must make way for the ubermen, who will come after the last men
who stand blinking . . . blinking. We now know that they are blinking because th
ey are surrounded by screens, screens of useless data and informercials everywhe
re. In the midst of that deep darkness he finds hope, and so he wrote Zarathustr
a who descends from the mountain where he had his eagle and snake for companions
. He descends to tell us about the Uberman as a possibility which is our ownmost
possibility in the midst of the Abyss that is the Western tradition. We cannot
be the ubermen but we can make way for them. They are close to the earth. They d
o not corrupt everything they touch. They are not destroyed by us but are imperv
ious to our disease of nihilism. Each part of Thus Spake Zarathustra is worth th
inking about carefully.
For instance, there is the place where he is climbing the mountain, and reaches
a point where the mountain comes into manifestation as he puts down his foot for
the next step (it comes to meet his foot), but then he finds a way to the Headl
and Above the World which is the transcendentals, at which he climbs onto and ov
er his own head. But then he comes down and goes to the Sea, and talks to the se
a about all its terrible memories, all the wrongs lost in oblivion, that everyon
e thought that they could cover up, but actually they never go away, but are lod
ged forever in the sea that moans with its burdens. Just considering these nihil
istic opposites is enough to serve as food for thought for some time for all of
us. Or for instance the tale at the beginning of the tight rope walker who falls
, because the uberman jumps over him on the tightrope, and then Zarathustra has
to carry his corpse. We are that corpse. We have lost the Feorh.
Conversing with the Philosopher yourself is always better than the summaries of
others. The only thing better than that is being the Philosopher who you are you
rself.

One of Nietzsche's most compelling theories includes an investigation of what he

calls slave morality. Slave morality rises forcefully with Constantinople (here
you have the combination of imperialism with the Christian power of Constantine
). You have to remember, before Christianity became the official religion of the
Roman Empire, there was an emerging deviance of the Roman ruling class and ther
e was nothing positive about it; it was entirely pornographic. The Christians at
the time were resentful of their persecution in this system (and they were pers
ecuted) so they: labeled the system (good/evil) by reversing the original charac
ter of what was considered aristocratically good (strength, good health, ambitio
n, etc.) with what was considered aristocratically bad (plebeian weakness, sickn
ess, etc.). In other words, the Christians who were considered in this system as
"bad" reversed the meaning of bad to become good and that which was formerly go
od to become evil. (Ex. only the meek shall inherit the earth and it's harder fo
r a rich person to get to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a n
eedle.)
For Nietzsche, the value of moral value is what ought to be questioned. The repl
acement of what was considered good or bad with what was considered good or evil
is the core of the problem. Ressentiment is a distinct feature of slave moralit
y, so rather than aspiring to power (or encouraging a will to power) humans are
busy reproaching power. In this way, ambition becomes tied to greed and we becom
e suspicious of achievement. A will to power is what drives human behavior. This
is not only domination, but the desire for perfection. If you take this away th
rough a promotion of egalitarianism or justice by way of the law, you will destr
oy man. In Nietzsche's own words, it is a secret path to nothingness.
People associate Nietzsche with nihilism, but his theory was a critique of nihil
ism. For him, nihilism is not "wanting nothing" in the sense that "I do not want
anything," it is actively wanting the nothingness itself. Zizek, following Laca
n who follows Nietzsche emphasized how, in anorexia, the subject doesn t simply no
t eat anything, she rather actively wants to eat the nothingness itself. This is
indeed what capitalism produces. The famous example is Coca Cola. You are thirs
ty and you desire to drink a coke, but doing so will actually make you thirstier
. You are getting the very thing that you want which is the nothingness. Nothing
captures this quite like Coke Zero.
We are in an interesting time and, in my opinion, no one has better explained th
e problem of resentment that plagues us quite like Nietzsche.

Fair disclosure: I'm a huge Nietzsche fan. I've studied his stuff for decades,
given talks about it, and even translated a fair amount.
It is impossible to adhere to the tenets of Nietzsche's philosophy. It is a con
tradiction in terms. If you think there are tenets, let alone adhere to them, y
ou are not paying attention to Nietzsche and are missing the point of Nietzsche
in the first place.
Take the bermensch. (Please!) Even though the word only appears in one book, an
d mostly in the prologue, it can be seen as a lens through which everything abou
t Nietzsche can be viewed. To Nietzsche, humanity is a bridge, a transitional s
pecies. We're a bridge between apes and something else. It is not at all clear
what we are a bridge to. It might be the Last Man, who is the ultimate couch p
otato. But if, some day, humanity transcends our petty, ape-like problems, we m
ight wind up as something great.
The bermensch, or the Child in the three transformations/metamorphoses, is a name
for this. The Child is the creator of new values. What new values will the ber
mensch create? We don't know. That is the whole point of saying that they will
be new.
What we can do is make the ground fertile for the bermensch to grow. This requir
es some things:
1) We have to be able to perceive current values and also aspects of our nature
unflinchingly, even when they are pretty disgusting and we don't like to look.
As Nietzsche wrote, "Do I speak of dirty things? That is not the worst I could
do. It is not when the water of truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that th
e wise avoid walking in it." This requires breaking taboos and rejecting the co
mmon idea that problems will just go away if we agree not to talk about it. Pra
ctically all of Nietzsche's criticisms of, well, just about everything are of th
is kind, which he calls "bad air." This includes ressentiment morality.
2) We have to break free of the old values. This is the function of the "blonde
beast," which is frequently misunderstood. It isn't some Aryan kraut with a lu
ger. It's a lion. It's the transformation after the camel (who obeys the drago
n, with its scales saying "thou shalt" holding the values of thousands of years)
. The camel must reject these pre-conceived values and become the lion. Nietzs
che could as easily have used the black panther as a metaphor, which would proba
bly have had some effect on how people interpret him. (Note ironically at this
point that, while Nietzsche had a lot of bad things to say about modern Jews, th
at he had some good things to say about ancient Jews, and the lion is a central
symbol of Judaism.)
3) Breaking the old values, however, is not enough. The "sacred no" is importan
t as a phase, but in and of itself, it can only lead to gainsaying and destructi
on. What is needed is a "sacred yes," that of the Child and then (possibly) the
bermensch.
So what will that be? Nobody knows; nobody can know yet. That's the point. Ni
etzsche didn't have any fixed answer, so there is no point in adhering to it. W
hat is the answer? I don't know. Neither do you. I have some ideas, and proba
bly you do, too. The whole point of Nietzsche is to go through the process. It
is the true meaning of "progressive."

You should realize that you are asking for someone to put the universe into a se
ed. Such a thing is impossible. To do so would be akin to giving you a load of c
oal, and telling you that it is the same as the diamonds they could be.
That said, he basically thinks that we should elevate ourselves to the fullest o
f our potential, and seek greatness.
He also thinks that we would be wise to forget about the distant past, in order
to create the best future.
Think for yourself and accept nothing as a fact if you haven't been able to dete
rmine its veracity.
Understand the words that you use. Use those words coherently with their corresp
onding definitions. We cannot communicate with each other unless we can achieve
cohesion. Nietzsche was a philologist, before he was a philosopher. He had an im
mense vocabulary and understanding of words and their definitions, which is why
he is little understood by those who don't like to pickup a dictionary multiple
times when reading every sentence. There was a little hyperbole for you, which N
ietzsche, himself, was a master of. But, seriously, it is a great way to increas
e your own vocabulary, if you take the time to read his words for yourself. He o
ften wrote extremely long sentences because of his complex chains of thought.
Please, take this seed into your mind and water it. If you do, you will find tha
t the complexities and wonder of the universe can spring forth from the mystery
of what is hidden and trapped within.

Most of the answers have covered his broad ideas; overman, eternal recurrence, w
ill to power, death of God, a nihilistic future, transvaluation of all values, a
nti-rationalism etc. I will add to list, Amor Fati or love of fate , which Nietzsch
e considered his formula for human greatness. This idea is developed in The Gay S
cience (GS 276) and is there at various places in his Zarathustra.
I will quote from Ecce Homo , the ending paragraph of his essay, Why I Am So Clever ;
My formula for human greatness is amor fati: not wanting anything to be different
, not forwards, not backwards, not for all eternity. Not just enduring what is n
ecessary, still less concealing it all idealism is hypocrisy in the face of what i
s necessary but loving it...
.
.
.. and if you wish to enjoy a good laugh, then here is our friend Friedrich - The
Most Ubermensch Man in the World

I've read quite a lot from Nietzsche. This is what I think is what he wanted to
say :
1) Nothing is fundamental : Absolutely nothing. Nietzsche spent all his career t
rying to disprove the age old 'facts'. He even went as deep into Human psyche as
to get a glimpse of the origin of human psyche. In his struggle to prove that w
hat we generally take as 'truth' is nothing but a man-made entity, he even denou
nces conventional 'morality' and says that our so called "moral values" were als
o man-made. This idea that nothing is inherent to humanity or nothing is absolut
e is central to Nietzsche's line of thinking. It sets him apart from other philo
sophers who only try to re-define what is generally accepted as 'truth'. He even
said, "There are no facts; only interpretations."
2) Challenge the orthodoxy : Questioning things is also a core aspect of Nietzsc
he's thinking. Especially the things which "can't be questioned." He raises many
important and offensive questions, most famous being the existence of God and t
he nature of Christianity. He was raised a Christian, but gave up his faith at 1
5 years of age. Not only this, he went on to author "The Anti-Christ" thereby c
hallenging a 2000 year old ideology which up until then "couldn't be challenged"
. And not only Christianity, he raises questions on all the important thinkers b
efore him and doesnot shy away from criticizing them.
3) Create your own values : This follows from the above. Once you've challenged
older ideas you'll have to create new ones to live. Nietzsche does so by creatin
g the "Ubermensch" or the "Superman" and describes him as a newer, future specie
s of human beings where Humans have successfully given up their longing for God
and eternal life, have stopped clinging to myths but have started to live life t
o the fullest by creating their own values instead of borrowing them from some G
od. They've also overcome basic faults in human nature and have finally learned
the meaning of Harmony. He says such men belong to the future and he can see the
m coming.

The Death of God:

God is dead
There are nofacts only interpretations
What is truth? A mobile army of metaphors and anthropomorphisms
Nietzsche was not the first to proclaim the death of god. It was a statement mad
e by Hegel in his earlier less reputable writings as well as by Martin Luth. Whe
n Nietzsche says that God is dead he is not making some theological proposition
, no Nietzsche is saying that people dont really believe in god anymore. People
who today subscribe to christianty do so without any passion and commitment to t
he religion and will not go out of their own convenience when the religion deman
ds it of them.
Nietzsche likewise rejects truth. In the history of western though truth, from P
lato to Hegel has always been something monistic ( Das Ganze is das Wahre Hegel; Pl
atos the form of the good ) (P{hysics: the unifying theory of the four fundamental
fields of physics) Truth is the unity behind the deviersity of appearance that m
ake up the world. As such metaphysics does manifest itself in anotheworldly form
which is why Nietzsche rejects truth. Example: Marx interpretation of Hegel s Her
rschaft und Kenchtschaft posits that the laws of the world are realized in some
future state of affairs ( socialism ). Example: Socrates dreamed of a world where he
could go on practicing philosophy forever.
I am not to familiar with Nietzsches *arguments* against the above epistemologie
s but the idea that there is no truth to grasp is something that reflecting on o
nes imediate experience can. In its place Nietzsche posits what Solomon (from wh
ose lectures I am heavily borrowing here) calls epistemological nihilism or the
idea that truth is dependant on what is useful and practical.
The Eternal Retrun of the Same
[too long to quote: see Gay Science]
This is what Nietzsche called his greatest idea. It is a though experiment that
asks you to aggressively confront your life and your attitude to life. The basic
idea is as follows: how would you react if you had to live the life you have le
d and will lead over and over again exactly the same eternally. This has the pot
ential to be the greatest weight if you do not truely love life / your life whil
st on the other hand it could be the greatest thing you have ever heard and cert
ainly Nietzsche Uebermensch would unhistatnyl say yes to the question.
The eternal return of the same is also a kind of philosophivcal hammer with whic
h to test whether ideas are in fact life affirming. Thus you wouldnt want to spe
nd all eternaity leading you life whilst basing your life on a desire to live in
the middle ages or to go to heavan.
Nihilism
Multiple definition throughout his notes. Good example:
The highest values devalueing themselves
Nietzsche describes nihilism as a spectre haunting europe He identifies nihilistic
tendencies precisely wherer the authors today and in his time would have locate
d the bulwark against nihilistm, namely in philosophy and religion. Religion and
Judeo Christintity specifically are nihilistic in that the are world negating.
This can be understood with reference to the eternal recurence. If an individual
were to live forever and if that individual were christian he would spend his l
ife wanting heavan which is tantamount to wanting nothing . Life is a thing heav
ing is otherworldy therefore heaving is nothing and the will to nothing spoken sa
credly Modern Politics would be a very good example of nihilism in action. Thus O
bama campaign for a mystical change is very very nihilistic as it is bound to be u
nderstood.
The Uebermensch
I teach you the overman. Man is something that must be overcome. What have you do
ne to overcome him today`
Man is a rope spun between ape and superman
The idea ofthe uebermensch is only mentioned once in Nietzsche corpus at the beg
inning of Zarathustra. The word Uebermsch is actually not something Nietzsche ca
me up with. Goethe uses the term in a poem and there is some evidence to suggest
that the term existed in ancient Rome (I believe). The uebermensch would be def
ined by many scholars as an individual who unabatently accepts the thought of th
e eternal return. But he is also more than this. He is the ideal human being or t
he will of the earth that justifies our existence. Niethsce calls him and the cul
ture which will give birth to this individual the grosse Mittag the great, halcyon
mid-day. Suggesting that once humanity has reached its height it will descend i
nto darkness. Whether the uebermensch is an indiiduals or a race i cannot say fo
r sure. Nietzsche often flirts with the idea of creating a certain political ord
er based on his ideas (eg. The good europeans) but just as often disgards these
ruminations.
There are also darwinistic tendencies in Nietzsche. He expresses admiration for
darwin at the beginning of The Genealogy of Morality (more on which below) and t
he image of man being something spun between an ape and a superman is clearly an
allusion to darwin. Nietzsche pragmatic epitsemology is also often clarified in
darwinian terms (ie true is what is rpactical, practical is what aids survivali
) but Nietzsche is at odds with darwin in that the survival of the fittest does
not mean that the best survive. Thus there was a theory circulating a couple of
years ago arguing that the last two creates to battle it out at the end of evolu
tion will be the syphilis virus and the cockroach.
A good example of the kind of life the uebermsnch might embody is represented by
the German Poet Goethe for whom Nietzsche had great admiration. Goethe, says Ni
etzshce, explored the limits of his life and life as it was accessible to him. G
oethe was someone who fully developed his talents and had a strong passion for w
hat he did. Goethe also had a very intricate persona life.
The Will to Power
Der Wille zur Macht
Note: It is wille zur macht not wille zum reich Power does not mene political power
or money for which Nietzsche expresses contempt in a number of cases. Power here
refers to an individuals ability to exist their will in pursuing self master (a
central idea to Nietzsche) as a means to developing their talents. An individua
l with a strong will to power exemplifies passion, enthusias and excitement abou
t their ideas etc. Philosophers, writes Nietzsche, have the most spiritual will
to power.
Master Morality Slave Morality
one must give style to ones character
The history of western civilization since the birth of christianity has been a c
onflict between master and slave morality.
Master morality: Masters consisted of a highly wealthy elite who never worked. A
s a result they founded an ethic not only of virtue (doing what is right such as
not lying) but of excellence (excelling in crafts such as archery) These are wh
at made masters good and they called themselves such. Bad was anything that was fe
eble, weak and not free as them. Ie. The slaves on whose work they relied for th
eir aristocratic standing.
Slave morality: Slave were being oppressed by the masters. Thus they called the
masters evil and themselves, people who were not like the masters good Slave moralit
y is thus reactive.
Modern politics is a decadent form of master morality cloaked in slave morality. W
ith the advent of christianity and the resultant troiumh of slave morality (ie,
the bible says it is easier for a camel to go through the pin of a needle than f
or a richt person to get into heavan) up to the present master morality and slav
e morality mix. This is something that Nietsche says is too interesting to go un
noticed on a small planet in. When for instance Obama becomes elected he is an i
ncredibly powerful person. As such he is a master. But the cultura ethic that do
minatess the society he rules is one of slave morality. As such he cannot assert
himself as being superior to anyone (ie he proudly proclaims that he comes from
some goatherder in africa) The inteeraction etween master and slave morality is
something I do not quite fully understand but essentially master morality bewco
ems sublimated into something finer more spiritual than it was in the ancient wo
rld. This is the process the overman is to follow through with.

Generally, how does one find meaning? When one has no moral system whose tenets
one adheres to *without question* hesitation results. You will rationalize when
you see a dollar on the street -- "should I pick up that dollar or not?" instead
of immediately recognizing the answer (for you). The frustration of this compet
ition can lead to nihilism.
Nietzsche prefers active ideas. Action, a life lived with intention. He shuns we
akness. Be a vital person, and do not be afraid of willfulness.
He criticizes any system that imposes weakness (read: inability to honestly expr
ess one's true will) on man. Wonderfully, he celebrates the bravery and greatnes
s of Jesus, criticizing Christianity (the system) for transforming Christ into a
martyr, inverting the vitality of his nature and life.
Life and vitality, then, not subservience to externally imposed ideas -- like th
e ones the aristocracies of Europe, in his time, imposed. Seek to be master and
not slave.
Not surprisingly, Nietzsche had a theory of death to complement his powerful the
ory of life. It follows from his encouragement to live ones life honestly and co
nfidently that one should die without regret -- amor fati, to love all aspects o
f your life, the good and the bad, the suffering and the joys. Live your life in
a way that you would be happy to live again and again, in just the same way, et
ernally.

Nietzsche s philosophy is that man is radically free, even free from the truth, si
nce God is dead and there is no truth. His philosophy is that of radical nihilis
m (from Latin nihil meaning nothing ) since there is no meaning to be found in the
world, other than what an individual may choose to give it.

There isn t one. He makes a series of striking remarks, some of them clever. They
do not add up to a system.

For Nietzsche there is no point in religion or nihilism because both are the cen
tral points of a standard which is itself meaningless and unfounded or created b
y man.

Richard Rorty once proposed that philosophy is really a branch of literature, de

scended from Plato. I d narrow this down to academic philosophy to make it distinct
from some other genres of philosophy.
Nietzsche identified himself with the pre-Socratic philosophers, particularly He
raclitus, which would be outside this academic tradition. Though he responded to a
cademic philosophers, he most frequently identified himself with essayists, nove
lists, dramatists, and religious prophets.
Harold Bloom and Walter Kaufmann have placed Nietzsche in a tradition of wisdom w
riters as Bloom calls them. Nietzsche is a central figure in the modern European
tradition that begins with Montaigne and Shakespeare in the 16th century, center
s on Goethe around the turn of the 19th, and extends to Freud and the psychoanal
ysts of the early 20th century.
Nietzsche, as an expert in ancient literature, identified the deficiencies in So
crates and Plato (the founders of the academic tradition) and also with Christia
nity. Much of this was done by comparing them to the other intellectual cultures
of their time, adding psychological and sociological context to their positions
.
Nietzsche also was very concerned about a philosophical movement he predicted -
postmodernism. He noticed that the progress of reason was tearing apart the fals
ehoods that he attacked, but largely replacing it with more petty and resentful
falsehoods.
Sadly, the French existentialists hijacked Nietzsche with little appreciation of
anything beyond his critical methods. Differentiating Nietzsche from these figu
res is as important as his fight with the academics.
If you want to better understand Nietzsche, I d recommend reading some of his favo
rite works outside of academic philosophy, including:
The Greeks
The major Tragedians
Brian Leiter s lecture on The Birth of Tragedy is an excellent introduction to this
topic, as is the translator s preface written by Walter Kaufmann.
Heraclitus
The Tao Te Ching is extremely similar, and there is much more commentary to help
understand it. Understanding how Taoists and Zen masters respond to Western dua
lism is a shortcut to understanding Nietzsche s fight with Plato.
Thucydides
Often considered the first great historian, Nietzsche considered his work to be
the height of Sophistry. Appreciating Thucydides worldview gives context to our mo
ral perspective.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Giacomo Leopardi, Walter Savage Landor, Prosper Merimee
These are the four great prose writers of the 19th century whom Nietzsche loved.
I ve found that the first two give great insight into Nietzsche s worldview.
Stanley Cavell has detailed Nietzsche s close study of Emerson, who was extremely
influential during the German s early years.
Leopardi has been described as an Italian Schopenhauer, and is often regarded as
the greatest Italian poet since Dante. His Zibaldone appears to be one of Nietz
sche s great influences.
I d also highly recommend reading Oscar Wilde s The Art of Lying and Critic as Artist if
you want to understand Nietzsche s love of masks.
Stendhal and Dostoevsky
These were the two great pioneers of the psychological novel, and two of Nietzsc
he s absolute favorites. Both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche were inspired by Stendhal,
who wrote extensively about how vanity drives all sorts of irrational fantasies.
Hinduism
The Upanishads were very popular at the time - Schopenhauer and Emerson, two of
Nietzsche s major influences, were both fans of this work, as was Nietzsche.
I ve personally found that Hindu mythology and theology can bridge the gap between
Greek and Christian thought. This is invaluable if you want to understand Nietz
sche s idea of how life should be lived.
Nietzsche didn't devote his life to creating a logical philosophical system. To
a casual reader, his ideas seem like they are all over the place and underdevel
oped. Some of his ideas in his later works contrast and even contradict some of
his earlier claims. In that sense, he didn't 'advance' knowledge in a series o
f incremental logical arguments.
It is evident at once that Nietzsche is far superior to Kant and Hegel as a styl
ist; but it also seems that as a philosopher he represents a very sharp decline an
d men have not been lacking who have not considered him a philosopher at all becau
se he had no system. Yet this argument is hardly cogent [1].
Basing a philosopher's merits on the logical arguments that they portray, I thin
k, is a very reductionistic way of looking at philosophy and its role in describ
ing the human condition.
A system must necessarily be based on premises that by its very nature it cannot
question. This was one of Nietzsche s objections, although he did not put the poi
nt this way himself. The systematic thinker starts with a number of primary assu
mptions from which he draws a net of inferences and thus deduces his system; but
he cannot, from within his system, establish the truth of his premises. He take
s them for granted, and even if they should seem self-evident to him, they may not
seem so to others [1].
Nietzsche knew that this 'limitation' in his philosophy would cause a divide bet
ween his readers. In my opinion, Nietzsche's thoughts were some of my favorites
precisely because he wasn't afraid to write in the style that made most sense t
o him. Some people might think his thoughts are shallow and underdeveloped, I t
hink quite the opposite.
The will to a system: in a philosopher, morally speaking, a subtle corruption, a
disease of the character; amorally speaking, his will to appear more stupid tha
n he is. I am not bigoted enough for a system and not even for my system [XIV, 313
]. What Nietzsche objects to is the failure to question one s own assumptions. The
philosopher who boasts of a system would appear more stupid than he is, inasmuc
h as he refuses to think about his premises. This is one of the recurrent themes
of Nietzsche s later thought, and in characteristic fashion he often formulated i
t in more offensive language: the will to a system is a lack of integrity (G I 26)
. Building systems seems, moreover, to lack ultimate seriousness. It seems playf
ul to elaborate conclusions which must necessarily follow from assumed and unque
stioned premises; any child can do that: building systems is childishness (XIV, 36
6; XVI, 68).
1. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (Princeton Classics) by Walt
er Kaufmann

You are right. Nietzsche is largely ignored by analytical philosophy department

s. For a good analysis of exactly how ignored, read this: http://schwitzsplinte
rs.blogspot...
You need to choose between the analytic philosopher's presumptions about Nietzsc
he as a rabble-rousing fabulist:
It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all of th
e men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an ob
jectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "
Forget not thy whip"-- but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from hi
m, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity wi
th unkind remarks. [...] [H]e is so full of fear and hatred that spontaneous lov
e of mankind seems to him impossible. He has never conceived of the man who, wit
h all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not
inflict pain because he has no wish to do so. Does any one suppose that Lincoln
acted as he did from fear of hell? Yet to Nietzsche, Lincoln is abject, Napoleo
n magnificent. [...] I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of p
ain, because he erects conceit into duty, because the men whom he most admires a
re conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the
ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internal
ly self-conscious ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the
emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all
that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we
may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.
( - Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy)
Or the continental philosopher's Nietzsche as a heroic dismantler of the objecti
vist preconceptions of Kant and Hume:
The contemporary philosophical situation is determined by the fact that two phil
osophers, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, who did not count in their times and, for a
long time, remained without influence in the history of philosophy, have contin
ually grown in significance. Philosophers after Hegel have increasingly returned
to face them, and they stand today unquestioned as the authentically great thin
kers of their age. [...] The effect of both is immeasurably great, even greater
in general thinking than in technical philosophy.
( Karl Jaspers, Reason and Existenz)
My view (from reading a few of his books thirty years ago, so take it with a pin
ch of salt) is that his writing is 30% despicable, 50% uninteresting, and 20% va
luable. A somewhat too low value return for my taste.

I've came across a lot of philosophers who think of Nietzsche as nonsense.

To me this always implies that they probably didn't give his work a serious amou
nt of attention.
Usually they also tend to disregard him because of the association with existent
ialism.
Now something like the Genealogy of morality is a profound work imo. It had a bi
g influence, and thinkers like Foucault continued in that method (one could argu
e). But then again most analytic philosophers don't like or haven't read Foucaul
t either.
I took a course where we spent half the semester on Nietzsche, and everyone appr
eciated it... After some time. It made for great discussions during and after cl
ass.
Now there are some parts of Nietzsche where you don't really get an argument. He
just says it and that's it. Analytic philosophers most likely won't like that,
and I think there is some merit to that. That doesn't mean someone hasn't tried
to expound on it though.
Take a lot at this from The Gay Science. Kierkegaard also wrote something simila
r to this. It is very poetic, and I think it is about the pursuit of knowledge.
An analytic philosopher would probably say, "yeah but I can just argue this in t
hree sentences" or whatever.

In the horizon of the infinite. We have left the land and have embarked. We have b
urned our bridges behind us indeed, we have gone farther and destroyed the land be
hind us. Now, little ship, look out! Beside you is the ocean: to be sure, it doe
s not always roar, and at times it lies spread out like silk and gold and reveri
es of graciousness. But hours will come when you will realize that it is infinit
e and that there is nothing more awesome than infinity. Oh, the poor bird that f
elt free and now strikes the walls of this cage! Woe, when you feel /181/homesic
k for the land as if it had offered more freedom and there is no longer any "land.
"

It seems to many readers of Nietzsche that Nietzsche was wrong about Women, and
that he was a proud misogynist. However this assumption comes from a fallaciousl
y "literal" reading of his works and this is what Nietzsche never intended. Niet
zsche wants the reader to examine, introspect and interpret for himself what he
as a philosopher is actually saying and what he is actually not. He cannot be re
ad literally at all.
Nietzsche is not anti-women as is mistakenly commonly presumed. Nietzsche calls
both "Objective Truth" and "Womanly Woman" as hitherto philosophers two greatest
mistakes.
According to Nietzsche, the concept of one prescriptive "Womanly" Christian Woma
n is a gross falsehood perpetrated upon humanity. And Truth also is subjective a
s objectivity is impossible. Philosophers don't seem to understand this.
Similarly, women are also subjective and they should not be pushed into behaving
as one singular chastised woman, by religion. All philosophers before Nietzsche
have clothed "Woman" in metaphysical womanly chastity, meekness and weakness, w
hich has done all women only harm and pushed them back to such an extent that th
ey are thought of by religions, specially the Christian religion and philosopher
s like Schopenhauer as only trivial addendums to man's sexual pleasure or useful
only as mothers or for performance of domestic chores and that their salvation
lies in these chores. The woman who lives her life according to Christian ideals
is a good woman according to philosophers, and ones capable of individual perso
nality are sinners, harlots or witches in religio-philosophic traditions
Nietzsche's intent is to once and for all disrobe the metaphor "Womanly Woman" o
f gender prescriptive meekness and chastity awarded to her by all philosophers a
nd religions which have caused women only harm.
In his works, Nietzsche's criticism is inflicted on the metaphorical "woman" of
the philosophers and not women in general.
The metaphorical woman, and the search for objective truth; Nietzsche says in th
e beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, are the most commonly recognisable fallacie
s in western philosophical thought. And Nietzsche attempts to correct this by vi
rulently abusing truth and notions of deifying prescriptive womanliness by stupi
d philosophers. Nietzsche, I believe, is a feminist par excellence as he recogni
ses that an "equal" and empowered woman can help in creating a more improved an
d better humanity of ubermensches.
But for this we need ubermensch mothers to rear such strong children with the pr
oper values. And religion/philosophy has hitherto stopped women from becoming ub
ermensches.

The Ubermensch.
There is no 'saviour' in the form of the fantastical Ubermensch that will come a
nd redeem the human being's existence, i.e. there is no actual, prophesized, phy
sical entity called the 'Ubermensch' who will come to save us.
But this is not even something that Nietzsche was 'wrong' about ; because, on a
fairly standard interpretation of his texts, one realizes that the ideal of the
Ubermensch is inseparable from the ideal of concrete human living, of concrete,
everyday, human striving. In other words, we are always, already, striving for t
he Ubermensch even when we don't realize that is what we are doing, i.e. in the
realm of our everyday valuation of human existence.
Even when Nietzsche was wrong, he's kind of right. But then, that can be said of
most philosophical genius.

I cannot comment on Nietzsche in an authoritive way ( no one can). But personall

y I feel him going in a little awkard direction when he introduces 'eternal recu
rrence' and 'The Will to Power'