I mean, I don‘t disagree, I‘ve always despised Aristotelian ethics. 😂

Kind of a high bar tho, don‘t you agree? 😁

Yeah, I expected that. Someone else wasted his time trying to reason with you about your „refutation“ of dictionaries already, I won‘t make the same mistake. Thanks for your answer though.

So you wouldn‘t agree with the definitons in e.g., Merriam-Webster?

You keep spamming this everywhere in this subreddit: Please define „myth“.

But people are animals?!

A short list of scholars that disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of „Nietzsche’s arguments being incoherent“:

• Brian Leiter‘s „Nietzsche on Morality“;
• Stegmaiers „Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral“
• Christian Niemeyer‘s „Nietzsche“
• De Gruyter‘s „Klassiker Auslegen: Nietzsche“
• Raffnsøe‘s „Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral“
• Rüdiger Safranski‘s „Nietzsche“.
• Ernst Behler‘s „Derrida-Nietzsche Nietzsche-Derrida“
• Kaufmann‘s works

And lastly, some ReAl PhIlOsOpHeRs:

Derrida Deleuze Foucault

I can go on, if you really want to die on that hill.

It is dishonest to claim that Nietzsche did not formulate coherent arguments.

So much of his writing is ironic and a lot of it is playful exaggeration. His books (as a German reader) are easily some of the greatest pieces of writing in the German language. Countless philosophers, artists and writers concur. Thomas Mann would be an example. I‘m sorry but describing his writing as „deliberately boorish“ or „nasty/crude“ is irritating, if not plain wrong.

Not a single coherent argument against any of Nietzsche‘s ideas.