Usually, I think Nietzsche’s depth of thought, nihilism, and the profound unsettling one gets while reading him…outlast such criticism. I remain highly skeptical of scholarship that seeks to sanitize, normalize, or put Nietzsche into either a humanistic, pluralistic, political or even scientific context.
An interesting comment, as Nietzsche was a dazzling writer/poet, something of a musician, and a philologist:
“It was not a shot at pedantry when Nietzsche said we would not get rid of God till we had got rid of grammar. The remark implied that universals and abstraction are inherent in language and that the normal outcome is reifying – attributing real existence – as though the abstraction were more than the particulars that compose it. Yet we must generalize; that is how language works, so we’re always at risk of misleading ourselves. That’s how I read it, anyway.“
Related On This Site: Maybe if you’re defending religion, Nietzsche is a problematic reference: Dinesh D’Souza And Daniel Dennett at Tufts University: Nietzsche’s Prophesy…
Leo Strauss had a heavy Nietzschean influence (via Heidegger especially), and among other things tried to chart a course out, or around him, and that strain of post-Enlightenment thought…Harry Jaffa At The Claremont Institute: ‘Leo Strauss, the Bible, and Political Philosophy’…Peter Levine discusses the Nietzsche connection here.
Here’s Nietzsche scholar J.P. Stern on Nietzsche’s anti-Christian, anti-secular morality (Kant, utilitarians), anti-democratic, and anti-Greek (except the “heroic” Greek) biases…
Was Nietzsche most interested in freeing art from a few thousand years of Christianity, monarchy and aristocracy…something deeper?, at least with regard to Camille Paglia. See the comments: Repost-Camille Paglia At Arion: Why Break, Blow, Burn Was Successful