Yeah, it's not been going too well for him since 1900.
Often, the tragedy and the greatness are deeply connected.
This is, I think, the motivation behind formulating the idea of the Will to Power.
The question, if you can chose: What is better, to be a great person, one that makes a lasting (hopefully positive) mark on the world, or to be a happy nobody, instantly forgotten when you die?
Everyone is entitled to their own answer to that question.
My fates long since by Thetis were disclosed,
And each alternate, life or fame, proposed:
Here if I stay, before the Trojan town,
Short is my date, but deathless my renown;
If I return, I quit immortal praise
For years on years, and long-extended days.
Convinced, though late, I find my fond mistake,
And warn the Greeks the wiser choice to make;
To quit these shores, their native seats enjoy,
Nor hope the fall of heaven-defended Troy.Excerpt above taken from this translation: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Iliad_of_Homer_(Pope)
The closest current analogy to Nietzsche would be Jordan Peterson, I think. Their problem definitions are very similar (ie to fight nihilsm), but it seems to me that Nietzsche's proposed path is more heroic, but also harder.
While Peterson’s most basic premise to “fight against nihilism”, is respectable I don’t think he is philosophically well-equipped enough to have the same lasting effect as Nietzsche—if you listen to his arguments it’s clear that he’s quite ignorant of a whole swath of philosophical developments that have occurred in the past few decades. His arguments are not sophisticated. Someone with a basic education in the humanities can craft them just as easily. His whining about the death of individuality is also shallow—he doesn’t even realize the very shape of the concept of induiviudality itself has changed over time. He’s praying for the ressurection if old concepts, which is a method the ignores the particularités and needs of our own historical situation. Part of this could be a result of his trying to reach a wide audience, part of it could be his lack of capability, idk. At any rate, even though Nietzsche has an aphorism about writing for your readers it’s clear he himself didn’t do so, and his reknown partly stems from the uniqueness of his style, which is impeccable. In this regard Peterson doesn’t hold a candle to Nietzsche. Of course he may still be remembered, given he’s speaking for a different era, but idk, lacking argumentative or stylistic ingenuity typically doesn’t net you a spot in the hall of fame.
That said, I also see Peterson as clearly adding much less than Nietzsche (if anything at all) on pure philosophy. He is a psychologist, first and foremost, that happens to draw on some concepts from philosophy and biology (developed by others) for the purpose of providing a path for people (mostly young men) that have lost the sense of purpose.
In this confrontation with the inner emptiness, he seems to grapple with the same problem as Nietzsche, but with a more practical approach.
Indeed, as a clinical psychologist, his task is precisely to formulate it in a way that can reach people.
For those who have never had any serious struggles with the problem (nihilism, lack of purpose), he probably looks like a quack.
In fact, I would wager the majority of engineering/math/physics/etc happens after the proof of concept phase.
Jane Austen made greater contributions to the Western dialectic but we tend to dismiss her as a 'mere' novelist. I submit that we'll have grown up as a society when we start to recognize that Austen, with her emotional maturity and capacity to give her characters real, palpable depth, was the far greater figure.
He's been one of the most influential philosophers in the 20th century, both through Heidegger's influence -- especially in France, and through neo-Marxist (Frankfurt school) engagement with him. Finally there's Freud and his school of psychoanalysis, who took a lot of inspiration from N.
That doesn't really play to his advantage either.
That doesn't really play to his
advantage either.
The parts of Freudian psychoanalysis that have not passed the test of time (e.g. Oedipus complex, sexual differentiation, theory of homosexuality) clearly don't come via Nietzsche, whereas Freud's approach to memory and its malleability by our desires and hopes, which is most clearly from N, is not only alive and kicking, but as far as I can tell, now (in suitably modernised form) the dominant understanding of memory in contemporary psychology.
It's like saying that homeopathy principles are sound because vaccines are also based on `things that make you sick`.
I'd rather suggest you try to get a copy of `the black book of psychoanalysis` as I completely subscribe to the views developed in it and it'd be more on the point than any tldr; I might give you. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/25/books.france
Guardian article adds nothing to my claims about popularity and influence.
The Guardian article is to tease you into getting the book.
I'm not terribly interested in reading about P.A.: it's dead branch of psychology, and has been dead for a long time. There are plenty of books / articles describing the shortcomings of P.A. some of which I've read.
You're saying that because he's respected by some academics, he is objectively worthy of respect. But that's contingent on those very same academics being worthy of respect. And I'm not sure that they are, personally.
This is a major problem in academia and other areas. The academics end up being judged by fellow academics, and any claim to merit becomes completely circular. That's how you end up with things like Brutalist architecture -- it's because the architects are seeking approval from fellow architects; and not the people who have to live in, and around, what they build.
Even worse, those academics who "suck up" to other academics end up having the favour returned to them. He scratches your back, you scratch his, then he scratches yours again... You end up with citation rings.
See Taleb's Skin In The Game.
worthy of respect.