It is not simply a matter of man against man, it is the way of all of nature, all of life. — Fooloso4

What is natural does seem to be the central issue. And how we talk about that seems to be the most contested thing.

And how we talk about that seems to be the most contested thing. — Paine

Do you mean what is natural is contested or the contest of different philosophies or different interpretations of Nietzsche?

I was thinking of Nietzsche's idea of our present science as something that was available but problematic as a vehicle of certain knowledge. So, the natural was not presented as outside of the approach of established disciplines but not included either as a final word.

So, it is not clear whether the doubt about science is to be understood as a rejection of all that it produces or something else. In view of the fact that Nietzsche introduces a competing "science" not based upon a refutation of the other kind, but on the question of completeness, it is difficult to say what that is or could be.

Nietzsche's views on science are something I have not given enough attention to. A few scattered thoughts as to where attention should be given:

The relation between knowledge , truth and life.

Not simply science but the different sciences.

Determinism and eternal return.

Each of those thoughts merit exploration.

I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss them, especially since it would call for reading much more than Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I will try to put together an OP on the matter. I am more than a little uncertain, however, if such a dive into primary texts will interest the Forum.

I am more than a little uncertain, however, if such a dive into primary texts will interest the Forum. — Paine

That is an uncertainty that I confront every time I start and continue to put time and effort into a thread based on a primary text. There are always more readers than there are members who participate.

I encourage you to do it.

His prose is Lutherian. Maybe it was a dig at Luther, but maybe he thought such prose was a way to appeal to the masses.

I like what he says about the State in this one. — NOS4A2

Me too. Just found an old HB copy of TSZ, and read some pages which were very interesting.

I think his rhetoric is unfortunate, but a large part of the danger lies in taking what he says out of its philosophical context. — Fooloso4

C J Jung says, sometimes we need to adopt the principle of enantiodromia on interpreting his writings.
In that case, war should be translated to peace, overman to underman or underdog etc. Will to power is very likely had been modified from original Will to Life by either Niezsche's sister (by request from the authority for her financial gains) or some other authority to justify the political situation later in the country after his death.

I ignore all these negative, controversial and blurry parts of his writings, and only focus on the positive, energetic, existential and metaphorical parts which reads refreshingly genius and powerful.