You're not helping your recommendation by starting it with a condemnation.

What makes you think I want to read this book at all? Or that I'm reading Nietzsche for practical ethical advice? I have no idea who would do such a thing.

Much of philosophy is concerned with "how are we to live"?

I am consistently puzzled what people seek when they read Nietzsche, or what of value they take away from his writings.

> Much of philosophy is concerned with "how are we to live"?

And how does one decide that question? Presumably in response to a model of how the world is.

> I am consistently puzzled what people seek when they read Nietzsche, or what of value they take away from his writings.

I'm sorry that you aren't able to benefit from his writing.

I wonder if we both agree on our dislike of Ayn Rand. She presents a world view that is nicely convenient to people who don't want to care about others. Having a model of how the world is based on her writing would make one a callous person.

That's a poor comparison - just because the universe is amoral, doesn't mean we have to be. There's two parallel paths that I see people confuse all the time, that of how the world is (truth) and how we should be (good). Nietzsche is interesting for talking about truth, not necessarily good. Practical philosophy is just telling you what is good, and so far I haven't seen a moral framework that is competent at that. Especially utilitarianism. Partly because I think the idea of a moral framework is reductionist, but this isn't the right place, nor perhaps you the right counterparty, for me to lay out my issues with reductionism.

Tldr: yes I think Rand is a poor moral philosopher too.

Thank you for engaging in this conversation and sharing your thoughts!