I'm jumping into this thread, but I think I see how you're talking past each other. Here's my read of the situation.
Take an idea like Newton's Law of Gravity, and let's separate the words that Newton wrote, and the content of the ideas behind those words. Many people, over decades, have considered how to best to present and teach the content of the idea in the best way possible. The same happens with Einstein's General Relativity.
Current practicing astrophysicists, even those whose career is making measurements of General Relativity, have very likely never read neither the original words of Einstein nor Newton's words on Gravitation. This is not a scandal because the physicist's attitude is: who cares about the words used in the original description, when what matters is the content of the idea?
Further, if smart and pedagogically minded people can work and re-work the actual content into a much more understandable distillation of the actual idea, why not use that? Everyone still realizes that it's Newton's idea.
Contrast this with a philosopher working on some modern topic that built on some ideas of Nietzsche -- saying they have never read the original words would be seen as an admission of professional neglect. But even a 1st year undergraduate, what's taken as an important thing is to read the actual words of Nietzsche (perhaps in translation) and not someone's presentation of the ideas in their best possible form.
So, let's circle back to the original distinction: the idea and the words originally used to express that idea. In physics, you attempt go to the best exposition of the idea (which is rarely the original words). In philosophy, there is a primacy given to the words themselves that is bizarre from the physicist's perspective.
Finally to address what you wrote here:
> The "replacement" for Nietzsche's books, if that's a goal, must also address WHY Neitzsche's arguments are weak or insufficient.
This isn't what is being asked for. Easier perhaps to shift into the physics example.
When learning of Newtonian Gravity you learn about the concept in the best form possible (again, not the original words used by Newton but a modern presentation of the content of the idea). That's the equivalent of what's being asked for w/ Nietzsche.
You may later learn how Newton's ideas are incorrect just as you may later learn ways in which Nietzsche's arguments could be improved, but that's for later.
The missing idea in philosophy is having the best presentation of the content of the idea.
Take an idea like Newton's Law of Gravity, and let's separate the words that Newton wrote, and the content of the ideas behind those words. Many people, over decades, have considered how to best to present and teach the content of the idea in the best way possible. The same happens with Einstein's General Relativity.
Current practicing astrophysicists, even those whose career is making measurements of General Relativity, have very likely never read neither the original words of Einstein nor Newton's words on Gravitation. This is not a scandal because the physicist's attitude is: who cares about the words used in the original description, when what matters is the content of the idea?
Further, if smart and pedagogically minded people can work and re-work the actual content into a much more understandable distillation of the actual idea, why not use that? Everyone still realizes that it's Newton's idea.
Contrast this with a philosopher working on some modern topic that built on some ideas of Nietzsche -- saying they have never read the original words would be seen as an admission of professional neglect. But even a 1st year undergraduate, what's taken as an important thing is to read the actual words of Nietzsche (perhaps in translation) and not someone's presentation of the ideas in their best possible form.
So, let's circle back to the original distinction: the idea and the words originally used to express that idea. In physics, you attempt go to the best exposition of the idea (which is rarely the original words). In philosophy, there is a primacy given to the words themselves that is bizarre from the physicist's perspective.
Finally to address what you wrote here:
> The "replacement" for Nietzsche's books, if that's a goal, must also address WHY Neitzsche's arguments are weak or insufficient.
This isn't what is being asked for. Easier perhaps to shift into the physics example.
When learning of Newtonian Gravity you learn about the concept in the best form possible (again, not the original words used by Newton but a modern presentation of the content of the idea). That's the equivalent of what's being asked for w/ Nietzsche.
You may later learn how Newton's ideas are incorrect just as you may later learn ways in which Nietzsche's arguments could be improved, but that's for later.
The missing idea in philosophy is having the best presentation of the content of the idea.