I cannot even regard Nietzsche as philosopher as his works follow no logic or scientific evidence. All he does it throws word riddles out of the blue and to me it is extremely annoying. I had listened to over 12 hours of lectures on Nietzsche and found his ideas interesting but reading him is impossible.

Whenever i pick up his work, within few minutes i put it down out of boredom. It takes me so long to just make sense of his sentences to in the end be disappointed in the idea. He criticizes and criticizes but finds it unnecessary to actually logically or scientifically disprove a philosophy, instead he just claims they are wrong. To me his logic reads like -- he is wrong, therefore i am right.

I find it hard to believe that i do not posses intellect to understand him as i understood all his ideas when i listened to lectures.

To me philosophers should resemble people like Carl Sagan or John Searle in their understanding of both philosophy, science and ability to coherently present material within short amount of words in a logical, clear manner.

I suspect Nietzsche is thought of as genius for a simple psychological fact that was discovered by gurus long time ago; the more ambiguous and hard to unravel you writing is- the more sophisticated it seems to the reader even when idea is in fact simple or nonsense.

Perhaps abstract is simply not for me as i also hate abstract art as it makes no sense to me.

Anyone else feels the same way about Nietzsche? Any comments?

The issue here isn't what he wrote, but the idea behind it.

It's true that when I first read Zarathustra my impression was similar to yours, but just because his writing style is a bit confusing (it was written a century ago, of course it will be confusing) doesn't mean that the message that he is trying to convey is bad.

And the reason he mainly criticizes is because from his own philosophy the first step to the overman is to destroy the old and flawed way of thinking. Once you do that, you'll have to create the new one on your own.

I understand what he sais, i just don't like the fact that he doesn't find it necessary to prove any oh his points.

That's odd, I rather enjoyed reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I thought the way he used story telling to convey ideas was wonderful.

One of the easiest ways for people to understand something is through story telling. A lot of people complain about his writing being complex and hard to understand but I didn't have any trouble with it.

I don't really know what all the fuss is about.

To each his own i guess.

"Why is Neitzsche so popular?"

.... beats me dude! I personally got no use for him!

Nearly everyone has a "philosophy." Nietzsche certainly did, but Nietzsche was not a philosopher--he was a social critic. His degree was in "letters" and his contemporary philosophers did not regard him as a philosopher.

The British contemporaries especially disliked Nietzsche. The English translations of his work deliberately make him sound pompous and are nearly incomprehensible to a modern reader. Remarkably, there are many English translations of Nietzsche in print that go back to that time about 100 years ago. If you want to read Nietzsche, be sure to look for a modern translation. The difference is amazing.

Part of the reason his language usage seems so strange is that it's been translated from the original German. Try reading Payot, or Freire. It's the same thing. It's all grammatically correct, but hard as F**K to read quickly. If you want to criticize for language use, try Bucky Fuller. Dude spoke English but I doubt most people get what he's trying to say. That's because ( according to Korzybski) language is the map, not the terrain. We don't have the language to express some concepts concisely, thus there exist these confusing versions. People have had over a hundred years now to analyze and debate Nietzsche so they've come up with a better way of explaining his concepts than even he had. No surprise. Socrates didn't use words like "meta cognition."