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.
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.
> 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
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I merely pointed to the undisputed popularity of psychoanalysis in much of the 20th century, and Nietzsche's undisputed influence on it, especially the conception of memory. This is orthogonal to questions of whether psychoanalysis is right or wrong. The
Guardian article adds nothing to my claims about popularity and influence.
I'm not sure what you mean. My position on N, memory and influence on P.A. has been consistent and clear, as far as I can see.
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.
The person you're responding to never made a claim to objectivity. The fact that someone is one of the most influential figures in the history of twentieth century thought and culture is, in my view, a very good reason to engage with them. If you care about our common world, and its history, then you may well want to understand Nietzsche.
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.