(Also. to show how much wit and how hilarious Russell WAS... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80oLTiVW_lc ... that's just hilarious, in my opinion...)

bump?

I'll take a look in a couple of weeks. No time now

lol...

To understand a philosopher you have to understand his time. That is also true for Nietzsche.
As Heidegger in the youtubevideo said "Nietzsches philosophy is the end of metaphysics", so there was a dramatic change in Germany. Nationalism raises up as Germany was finally united in 1871. There was no longer space in public for the "Biedermeier" - the german lifestyle of getting away from politics an Nationalism, that was typical the time before.
Instead the allmighty "Deutsches Reich" filled the hole public live, a new country with no moralic bonds, unleasching its dynamic economic power and military strength, ruled bei megalomaniac leaders, dreaming of a great colonial Empire. You can find that all over Nietzsches philosphy...but! Doesn`t Nietzsche only describe the circumstances, an idealistic view on the Prussian State? He allways said make your own mind, become stronger than the "Deutsche Reich", become your own master!

Its like the eternal return, an endless attempt to overpower the things that opress you, gaining more power to not become oppressed!

So if philosophers can be explained by their time, than Nietsche was facinated by the german political class and their will for power at that time. But he did not adore military force, our the domination of millions of people per se. No he adord power as a tool! A tool to live free as can be, just like the ancient greeks, his true ideal.

Nietsche is tragic figure, tragic in his attemps to transform the two thousand year old tradition of western philosophy into the "new times". Tragic because this attempt enmasksed all the falls prophets of western philosophy, tragic becauseof the brilliance of his critizism. Tragic because hi attempt of the "Übermensch" failed.

If you ask yourself what would the "Übermensch" look alike in our times, it is a politcal mature cosmopolitan. Creatively arranging his live, allways wanting to become more as it allready is. Its a realistic and pragmatic "artist", but not rational at all!
Nietsche ones said: "There still has to be a little chaos in you, to bear a dancing star."

I don't think that the Ubermensch has failed, as it has not BEEN yet...

Thee has yet to be a Superman figure...

It can be argued that certain characters in literature, Odysseus and Perseus and Hercules and Arthur and His Knights (Christian groundings notwithstanding), for example, have PARTIALLY met the description of the Ubermensch type... some have striven for and failed to reach that summit (Hamlet, who struggles to BE a great decider and man of action, like the Ubermensch, fails miserably as he shows us how frail we as human beings really are and how indecisive we can be, and Shylock, who constantly is exercising a Will to Control thorugh his dealings and eventual desire to revenge his insults upon Antonio, and he ends up being defeated by Portia and the Christian culture of Venice in the play), and we may even say that perhaps there have been a very select number of real-life people who have approached that sort of being (again, nietzsche taking so much from the Greeks and advocating them over Christianity, I'd say, Socrates ending in submission, Plato and Aristotle, particularly Plato, may be said, through their understandings and creation and realization of themselves as different modes of man via their philosophies, to have come closer than perhaps anyone else to the status of Philosopher Kings and Free Spirits, a step closer to the Ubermensch than we are), but all the same...

A TRUE Ubermensch has yet to realize himself (or, shedding the sexism of Nietzsche's time, herself... as a side note, who else finds it both amusing and perhaps a real statement about the real power of gender roles that the man who wasn't afraid of ANYONE, who would take on Richard Wagner and Immanuel Kant and the nationalist German ideals and the whole of Christianity and GOD HIMSELF... Nietzsche could face all that, but when it came to women, he pretty much threw up his hands in confusion, he's never too definite on women, when mentioned, the closest he comes to making a statement about them one way or another is essentially saying "Watch out... not only are women maybe smarter than us in some ways, but THEY ARE WEIRD, what man can REALLY understand this, I'm lost..." And I'd have to agree with Nietzsche there- two of my best friends are girls... but I'll be DAMNED if I know what they're talking about or why they act the way they do half the time...)

;)

The history shows that the concept of the"Übermensch" dramatically failed!
Germany became a destroying force in that time. At the beginning of the First World War many young german man enthusiastically and voluntary joined the war with a copy of Nietzsches "Zarathustra" in their pockets. The new united "Reich" did not lead his people to an new type of mankind, as Nietzsche expected. Instead it lead to a peolpe of brainless gun fodder. A development advanced by the Prussian States military tradition, that was not stopped until the end of its climax the second World War.

One can not blame Nietzsche for this development of Germany. But the concept of the "Übermensch" is embedded in his admiration of the new german "Reich" (not Hitlers Reich, its still about 50 years before that). But you have to say its appraisal of the times he lived in, and where they lead, was totally wrong. Out of the united Germany did not grow a new mankind as Nietzsche proclaimed, instead it became all Nietzsche hated and fought aggainst all his life. In this case Nietsche was just a blinded man, like many Germans in that time.

Obiwan you cannot seperate the"Übermensch" from the times Nietzsche lived in.
Nietzsches concept was a prediction and a promise, he said "this ist is the best possible form of goverment"(meaning the German Reich), but he was blinded by its strength and dynamic. In Nietsches philosophy the Übermensch was a child of that opressing Reich. Thats why Nietsches concept was so easily missused by th Nazis in terms of propaganda.

Nietzsche stood AGAINST the Reich, how can you SAY his Ubermensch is designed to support it- the whole concept follows after Zarathustra, a man who has LIVED OUTSIDE NATIONALITIES!

The Ubermensch is an extension of that idea, it is one of the strongest messages and, to be frank, one of the biggest "fuck you's" you both organized religion (ie, Christianity, which he calls "The religion of pity" with considerable contempt) and organized nation-states in the form or nationalistic powers!

To push that idea even further, his precursor to the Ubermensch, the Free Spirits he first mentions in "Human, All Too Human," SHARES that idea of being a creator of your own ideas, your own being, and staying outside what Nietzsche saw as the moronic and, at its core, even weak (by his definition) German Reich; Nietzsche is all about the Will to Power, to power and control over ONESELF FIRST... and the German Reich, from his time to WWI to Hitler, it failed in that regard, saying "We are strongest together and shall be a great national power" or, as things got out of hand, "We are a biological and cultural Master Race and we shall be masters of the world!" COMPLETELY misses the point, and takes only the first premise, being a Master, and ignores the second, being a Master OVER YOURSELF- and ANY nationalist system like the Reichs preaches that you are a citizen first, and an idividual second.

To be honest, the Nazi Regime's ideals actually more closely follow PLATO than Nietzsche- it's in Plato's opus "The Republic" where, along with MANY brilliant insights into education and the nature of man and government, there is, too, the first seed of facist thought, albeit likely due to Plato and the Ancient Greeks' living 2,000+ years ago and thus the tools to implement Plato's ideas to the extreme they were in Nazi Germany didn't exist; Plato wanted peace and justice, and in a world where the worst thing men can do to other men is stick them with a sharp object, a regime that has philosopher kings and eugenics (this also being an age where medicine was primitive and disease prevalent, so you COULD make an argument that this portion is more of a disease-controlling measure than a racial one) and a government "protecting" the people by totally controlling them and raising a huge army of Guardians and preaching State Unity so much that lying for this purpose is OK... in Plato's time, maybe this is understandable.

But NOT in 1934... so really, The Third Reich is the (disgusting) realization of Plato's Republic, more than Nietzsche's Ubermensch- but Hitler needed a GERMAN philosopher to give his ideas that "Germans came up with everything great ever" tint for the facist regime (a move, again, that Plato's Republic endorses) so Nietzsche got the nod.

But it IS Plato's Republic...

-Children killed if belonging to an "inferior" ancestry or if they exhibit any disease or defect of any kind
-Sexing supervised and controlled to a great extent by the state
-State nurseries to raise the children and train them from an extraordinarily young age
-A few kept in power and revered
-The military built up enormously and given a great amount of power
-Military prestige becoming the focus of the state (Plato barely even talks about the farmers, artisans, and fisherman and such, all about the philosopher kings and guardians...)
-State-sponsored propoganda and, where needed, flat-out, 100% lies that are known to be lies, spoekn for state unity
-And ALL for the great mantra of all dictators- "For the Greater Good."

fascism anyone?

I don't think Nietzsche used capital letters so freely... ; )

One observation I will make is that of all philosophers, Nietzsche seems to be the one most often picked up by younger people (especially males) as their first ally to quote in arguments. This was even the subject of one superb episode in The Sopranos which had a pubescent TJ moping around the house all gloom and doom - an attitude that led, some years later, to his failed suicide bid and only really resolved when, right near the end of Season Six, he is offered control of his own night club and a black-windowed BMW M3 to get him started professionally. It takes him all of a split second to accept the keys and adopt Satre with his 'to be is to do!' take on life.

@flashman:

Really- I thought the predominant philosopher for young males was Chuck Norris. ;)

But yeah, that's actually what my first philosophy professor (a fan of the analytic and so not a great Nietzsche fan, though he did like some of his points) said, and for the fewer and fewer (at least where I am) that actually care about philosophy and really get into it, that probably IS true, Nietzsche does have a sort of built-in appeal to younger people with his take-charge-and-be-a-Superman attitude and of course that appeals to males...

I don't see that as a bad thing, Nietzsche wanted to reach people; he just had the unfortunate luck (or in his case, is it even bad luck anymore. when so many things happen...) of his loudest "supporters" early on being the type he directly opposed- nationalistic monoliths and militaries...

But all the same, he would have wanted that sort of an audience, I think, because he wanted human beings to fundamentally change, and so he's not going to target the older crowd for that so much as the 20's-40's crowd, that magical demographic that nearly everyone covets because, when they actually get off their ass, they end up often times bieng the ones that make a difference, one way or another...

I like Hume and Mill too, and Plato and Aristotle to degrees, I just like Nietzsche best; I've never read a full work of Kierkegaard's (just some parts and heard some lectures) and I've never read Sartre, I'd love to read them; I'm committed right now, as I just finished Locke-to-Hume-to-Mill empirically, to reading some from the rationalist POV, halfway done with Descartes (I think his arguments for certain knowledge such as numerical axioms being absolute and a matter of pure reason are at least well done adn reasonably presuasive and interesting, but his arguments for God really disappointed me, not ONE was good, I thought, and as he uses that as a base for quite a bit, he needs God to be affirmed, needless to say I don't side with him or prefer him over Hume or the others, from what I've read so far) and after that likely Spinoza or *sigh* Kant (I suppose if I do this seriously I have to read him... but HE IS SO DULL, and knowing the idea of the categorical imperative I know I already don't like the idea, and his books are long and some of the more expensive at my Barnes & Nobles...) but interpsersed with that maybe I'll try for a bit of Kierkegaard or another 20th Century man (Wittgenstein interests me, don't know as much about him as others, but as he dealt with language and I have a passionatel love for literature only matched by philosophy and theatre academically, his "Tractatus" sounds interesting... and Russell seems a great character and a great analytic philosopher, but his misreading Nietzsche so badly and his also being a math-based philosopher concerns me, I just barely passed PreAlgebra the second time taking it, can take Honors Shakespeare and type a 25-page paper in one night just for the challenge and get an A on my analysis of 4 or 5 Shakespeare plays and their demonstrating the Bard's views on gender roles, but CANNOT DO MATH... and then Heidegger's "Being and Time" sounds like an amazing work from all reports, I've heard his philosophy is very unique... but it's huge size, $20+ price tag and that little fact about his activities from 1933-1945 are a natural drawback for me...)

So those are my points...

Nearly philosophy-book-buying time again, and it'll likely be Kant+another philosopher to contrast him with...

I'm considering Kierkegaard, a third Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Sartre- suggestions? (The one book I WON'T read right now is "Being and Nothingness," it sounds amazing, but it's HUGE, and with 2 English classes and a Philosophy of Religion one coming up, I can't read a tome that big and give it the proper amount of focus that it deserves...)

Obiwan your coming up with the wrong time! I did not talk about the Third Reich, i talk about Germany the late 19th century, thats a a differnet story Obiwan!
And Nietzsche WAS an admirer of that time...your a obviously not from Germany and maybe not good at german history, your were going straight on a period 60 years later.

I feel sad you never take on my arguments, i never said Nietsches "Übermensch" supports the "Reich". Again, its a concept born out of that time, a time of megalomaniac leaders an chauvinistic Nationalism.

The Third Reich is not a realization of Plato´s Republic! Sorry but i guess you have no clue of german history...I can´t even imagine where you get that from...

So picking up your arguments: "with his take-charge-and-be-a-Superman attitude"
You are allready idealising Nietzsche, that´s not what Nietzsche was alike.
The "Übermensch" is selfish, merciless and determined to created great artworks for mankind. The "Übermensch" stands against times of freedom and prosperity, where people just want to live long and happy, without conflicts and dangers. This people are called "letzter Mensch" (last man). This is all in his books, its not enough to read 2 or 3 books of Nietzsches work and than just extrapolate the meaning of its concepts.

My advice to you Obiwanobiwan is, rest with Nietsche, and later on take a book "about" Nietzsche and than rest again. Nietzsche is more an author with incredible psychological skill and a strong analyzing mind, than a typical philosopher.
He is fun in his thoughts and style of writing, but not in his philosophical concepts.

And YOU have, again, completely missed the point of what I said, and ALSO have completely misunderstood Nietzsche if you see him as a nationalist!

Part of the reason Nietzsche broke of his once-strong friendhsip with Nietzsche is BECAUSE Wagner and arguably his operatic themes themselves ere growing more and more lock-step in favor with the rising feeling of German Nationalism!

He wrote a whole ESSAY about it, "Nietzsche contra Wagner!" And later a wHOLE BOOK, "The Case of Wagner!" In BOTH he attacks the latter's growing connection to the Nationalist movement, along with the other two great irks that always bothered Nietzsche, a perceived leaning on Wagner's part to infuse his work with Christian overtones (Nietzsche's words there, not mine, I don't know the music of Wagner well enough to make a call there) and a DEFINITE case of Anti-Semitism on the part of Wagner, which disgusted Nietzsche (and, ironically, AFTER WWII, these two works would be cited as two of the big factors to clear Nietzsche of the "Nazi forebearer" charge, as clearly Nietzsche's expressing in those works, as well as in others, such as "Beyond Good and Evil" an extreme loathing for Anti-Semitism, and goes so far to call the Jews in that last work "the toughest people in Europe" and suggests Germans might even learn something from them.)

When I said Reich I was referring to the German governments 1880s-1918 in general, EXCEPT in the instances where I referenced the Third Reich directly; if that was a misnomer on my part calling those earlier governments a "reich" I apologize, figured if it was the THIRD Reich, and there WAS a German Empire pre-WWII in the WWI era, it must have been called a Reich.

Nietzsche was indeed a product of his time, but you are seriously misreading if you think he went along with the movements of his time in Anti-Semitism and Nationalism! The former's so much evidence against it I'm not even going to bother defending that further; and the latter... think for just a moment...

Nietzsche was unpopular in his time, often acknowledging this openly in his writing and even going so far in "Beyond Good and Evil" to state that it should, in his opinion, be the ROLE of the philosopher to be contrary to the given time, to be the rogue, as in that way, he says, the philosopher may then glean the true nature and the true ills of the time.

If Nietzsche had, like Wagner, gone along with the whole project of Nationalism, if his writings WERE an embracing of that, he would have been FAR more popular, already by the time of his insanity his works had begun to speak to people; by the end of WWI and after the German Nationalist Machine was defeated he REALLY picked up in influence and became popular, because... his philosophy was OPPOSED TO THAT! The same way after WWII existential thought would really flower on the Continent, even more than before, because all the atrocities of WWII made the ideals of THAT movement appeal more to the people.

Nietzsche was not at all like that, he went entirely against the grain, he was the furthest THING from a Nationalist!

The closest I can grant on that is that he DID somewhat endorse the sort of "make yourself stronger, we should be stronger" attitude of the Germans, but this was much more due to his theory of Master-Slave morality (an Aristotilian idea from HIS work "Politics" that Nietzsche expands and builds upon, and wouldn't you know it, THIS view, Aristotle's and Nietzsche's, tells that while the classes of Master and Slave should be different and the Master must rile the Slave, thee should NOT be a sort of militant rule by the Master, nor an uprising by the Slave, Aristotle in particular thought they should compliment each other) and his loathing of what he perceived to be the "weak" Christian religion (hence his endorsing strength) and, yes, chauvenism, THAT I will grant, if there is one thing Nietzsche never got, it was women, and while he refers to them in some places as intelligent, his overall picture of them ranges from intelligent to sneaky to unpredictable to, at the most chauvenistic, blood-sucking leeches, or else stating the best women are those that act like men.

As far as the Plato/Third Reich argument goes, that's a bit beside the point here, which is Nietzsche vs. Russell (and it seems you side with the latter), but one last thing:

Can you HONESTLY look at that list of things endorsed in "The Republic" and NOT tell me that those items were not present in Nazi Germany? I'm not saying Hitler and the Third Reich did a cut-and-pste job, merely that I thought Plato's writngs in that particular book IN ACTUALITY are closer to the Third Reich's ideals than Nietzsche's.

In regards to your "people just want to live long and happy" argument and stating the Ubermensch is agaisnt that- yes.

Because Nietzsche's view is that that is CONTENTMENT at best and limiting at its worst, that this is somewhat analogous to the little kid who never wnats to grow up- Nietzsche sees in mankind, in bits and pieces, the potential for us to evolve mentally beyond being contented by the mere meagerness of our state of being, and that we should, instead of just being "happy" with ourselves, problems and all, smash down this sort of blissful ignorance and FORCE man to look himself in the eye and GROW UP!


So I would submit, to sum up:

-Nietzsche was NOT in line with the Nationalist ideals, as evidenced by the statements above
-Nietzsche was NOT a warmonger
-Plato's Republic may not have been ripped bit-for-bit by the Third Reich, but it's closer to their government than anything Nietzsche proposed
-Nietzsche was a product of his time, but in such a manner that he was a REBEL against his time, stating so, having a reputation as being so, and the case of his books' popularity not being popular when they were (his lifetime, ie, the Rise of German Nationalism) and popular after WWI (AFTER the disillusioned people were broekn from the ideals of Nationalism, albeit shortl and only somehwat, and YES, I know he was in fact popular before and during WWI, but this was mainly due to the German Military's early appropriation of his ideals for their ends)
-Nietzsche's philosophy, while NOT AT ALL being systematic, is without a doubt powerful, important, and IS true philosophy, regardless of its unweildy structure; just because his philosophy is different from Russell's or Locke's or Aristotle's or other such systematic thinkers does NOT make it illegitimate.

I also must say I believe that you have misread Nietzsche, and perhaps in the same way Russell did.

I would say we should agree to disagree- but that is merely a pacifiying gesture and leads to nothing but empty appeasement, and Nietzsche himself would be insulted (Sartre too, actually, there's a great quote of Sartre's he wrote in "Anti-Semite and Jew" about how ridiculously useless and almost cowardly "agree to idsagree is," wich I could remember it...) so if I have not yet convinced you, or anyone else here, by all means, please keep trying to convince ME, if you believe you are truly right! ;)

(And no, I don't think or even pretend Nietzsche was right about EVERYTHING, or even that everything he wrote was right or even good, he did have some ideas I don't really think are too great at all... I jsut happen to like a lot of what he said, and take that TOGETHER with what thinkers such as Hume and Mill, my other two favorites, have said, and from the CONTRAST form my own ideas, which should be the goal of ANY good philosophy, to get you, the reader, thinking for yourself...)

Sorry i feel sad, you did not read my comment, again...
You are going berserk about me, as if i am saying all this to harm you.
You are taking this to personally, you identify with Nietzsche so much, you can´t see that you are projecting your own views into its philosophy!

You say the Russels is missreading Nietzsche? Russel was a philosopher and i bet he read all of Nietzsches work. I don´t know how old you are, but i bet you are just beginning with philosophy. You read 2 or 3 books and think that´s enough to know more than a prof. of philysophy. Do you really think that?

You are putting Plato near Hitler and do the same thing people did with Nietzsche!
Think about that!
If you would have read my comments without your "anger"?, you would have seen i am not putting Nietzsche or Plato near the Nazis. Instead i layed down why Nietzsche is not that kind of "Freigeist" you proclaimed. And not the Nationalist ,as you mean Russels sees him. And his "Übermensch" is not that Superman-comicbook-thing you mentioned.

One last advice, if you open up a thread on an absolutly spezial issue like a philosophers thoughts about another philosopher, you have to know more about the issue, and don´t go at the throats of commentators. There are lot people out there knowing much more than you about that issue, and if you would look at their thoughts, maybe you could learn something .

By the way Chauvinism is not about women, its about behavior of nationalistic States.
The Feminists lend it much later in the 1970s.

I am not interested to convince you, i put my knowledge in this comments so you could learn something. And no, Nietzsche would give a damn about your our my opinion
either :-)

Firstly, I am NOT anger or getting angry- I just get passionate... and capitalize because on this site I can't italicize. ;)

I will, however, take offense to one mention, that being your idea that because I amk younger and less experienced than Betrand Russell, my opinion and interpretation is de facto lesser than his. While conceding that in general age has an advantage on youth wehn ti comes to wisdom, and Russel was one of the greatest (and oldest... lived to about 97 I think? And all the while he SMOKED lol...) philosophers, that does NOT mean that he is above scrutiny. If you state that credibility should be based off a seniority system, Russell more valuable opinion-wise than you and you than me, then I am afraid, youthful as I might be, that I must confess in finding your logic rather... well, illogical, and unwise at that.

Secondly, on the subject of Nietzsche and the Nazis- the Ubermensch and M-S Moralit may seem to be in line with that, but that is taking the ideas out of context, and even if you want to discuss earlier, say, 1918, STILL his ideas were taken out of context by the military.

If I told you a person just barged into his mother's room, berated her about how unfaithful a wife she is and how she is being a truly terrible person, and then proceeds to stab a man, if I told you this and only this- would not this person appear to be a rather unsympathetic bastard?

If so... well, we've just condmned Prince Hamlet then, arguably literature's most symapthetic and human hero, to be deemed a bastard and not at all a good guy- because without the first three acts, that scene DOES make him look bad, doesn't it?

Same with Nietzsche- without the proper context, Nietzsche's work can be spun the way it was, and even ignoring the Nazis or any political implications, in the case of Russell, Nietzsche CAN appear to be aman who despises any and all lvoe and cares only for power, as Russell painted him out to be in that clip. However, numerous times Nietzsche CHAMPIONS passion and love, and in fact, that's one of my favorite quotes of his...

To give the proper context, from "Beyond Good and Evil," the chapter made up of maxims (I beleive the title varies from edition to edition, but as the whole chapeter is short maxims, it's pretty unmistakable if you look for it in the book), after Nietzsche has finished telling us previously how he feels Good and Evil to be wasted ideas and has spent much of this chapter examining relationships-

"What is doen out of love always takes place beyond good and evil."

As Nietzsche has clearly established that being beyond good and evil is PRECISELY what he wants people to do (or, I should say, one of many things eh suggests, but this diea being prominent) and he associatees actions of lvoe with something eh has alreadye deemed good, being beyond good and evil...

It would seem Nietzsche DOES endorse love- just not "Christian love" as he feels pity and such drains us- do I believe this MYSELF? To be honest, not really, not to the extent he seems to mean; I'd agree that an excess of this can drain us, and that something like Church services are, in my view, a negative form of love (for the record, I said CHURCH and NOT the religion it represents, religions I can for the most part tolerate and in most see at least some, redeeming qualities, I myself was born a Jew and I still think there are some genuinly good ideas in the Judiac Codes, I just find Churches and Temples to be tombs for REAL faith- but I digress) but I DO think pity (helping those in need, perhaps, to be more precise) is fine and can even be admirable under certain circumstances, aiding Haiti vicitms, for example.

Regardless, however, Nietzsche feels that pity is bad love, but that does NOT, as this quote shows, and as Russell fails to see, that Nietzsche stands against ALL love.



Plato I won't get into, as that was really a throwaway sentence that I didn't really intend to become a talking point; I'll simply say I am not twisting what he said and taking his words out of context, I am presenting them fully in context, and I did not say that the Third Reich cut-and-pasted his ideas, or even, to be clearer, that they might ahve even taken any at all, merely that the ideas expressed in "The Republic" whcih I listed, in my view, are closer to what I would call facism than Nietzsche's Ubermensch or M-S Morality.

And jsut to be clear:

I do NOT pretend to "know" as much about philosophy as Russell, and my own ideals are still very much under construction.

All the same, I feel that ANYONE should be allowed to question Russell, or Nietzsche, or Plato, or Aristotle, or Kant or anyone thinker- because otherwise, you're jsut accepting what they have to say, and everyone is qualified to be a thinker, and to think. Many don't do it anymore, maybe, but that is one of the best qualities of philosophy- anyone may take part and object and raise ideas, as it is a humanism, a human effort for all of us; some will be more profound, surely, and our words here will in all likelihood fade into the abyss as Plato and Aristotle and Kant and Nietzsche and Mill and Russell and Wittgenstein and the others are still read- but our views are still valid, and we may, we must still question others, be they the man on the corner or Bertrand Russell himself (although a face to face with him NOW might be rather difficult...) ;)

1. What you say about Plato is still what ssay did with Nietzsche, you are comparing it in away no scientist or philosopher would do that. You are just polemic.

2. "As Nietzsche has clearly established that being beyond good and evil is PRECISELY what he wants people to do (or, I should say, one of many things eh suggests, but this diea being prominent) and he associatees actions of lvoe with something eh has alreadye deemed good, being beyond good and evil..."

That´s a bad interpretion. Nietzsches subject is not love but morality.
Look i can do that too:
"The love to One is barbarism: because its carried on all the rests costs. Even the love for God." (My translation of the german original, i am wondering how they translate his "wordgames".)
That seems to me he never had love, saying this sentence. See you have tons of quotes, and once a critic said Nietzsche said something about everything and the opposite, first rule: don´t quote him.

3. Nietzsche came from an elite background, what in his days means he was against democracy. In his work he glorifies strength, fight, imperiousness an war.
That´s exactly the public mind of his days. You cannot wash that away, love and humanity DOESN´T apllie to that.

4. To claim Bertrand Russel to be more informant and wise on this issue, than a man read 2 or 3 books Nietzsche wrote and thinks he is a "love" philosopher, is not illogical and unwise, perhaps the opposite :-)

5. Merci and compassion is weakness for Nietzsche. I can´t imagine why you don´t get that? Even in the 2 books you read should it be mentioned. I think you are still projecting your own views on him, young people often do.

6. Anyone can question everybody! But with these lowered standards (not knowing about the work and times the person lived in) i feel free to not take anyones opinion seriously.