One could, of course, read some of Nietzsche's works, understanding that they influenced many subsequent philosophers as well as musicians and authors of note, rather than pose what seems to be a rhetorical question.

Apart from his telling us that God is dead; that we should get beyond good and evil (and pull our socks up); and that there are many perspectives on the same thing (if there is anything) but that none of them are correct or incorrect; is there anything else Nietzsche informed us about that I should know?

That is an excellent post. Nietzsche influenced many good and bad people that followed so that is the main reason why he is held in high regards by many. It is not so much what he said, but what he influenced after that is of the greatest importance.

You are boiling Nietzsche down far too much. Where are the will to power, the eternal recurrence, the revaluation of values, nihilism, building one's own life, amor fati, science, Socratism, the Dionysian life, the Appolonian life, philosophizing with a hammer, and all of the other main points that Nietzsche made throughout his work?

Nietzsche was a complicated thinker for many reasons, but it is far too easy to dismiss far too much due to the style in which he went about philosophy and the general condition of his own life.

Nice cartoon.
Yes, but you will have to read him..

But if all he said was that God is dead (whatever that meant) that morality is a crock; and that everything is a matter of perspective (except, of course, for Nietzsche's own perspective which is true) what else is there to learn from him, except how to rant?

Nietzsche was a troubled man.

Nietzsche was a troubled man.

Nietzsche was an unconventional (at least by modern standards) philosopher who challenged our highest values and notions of the world. His philosophical contributions can only be truly appreciated by certain individuals. Those who crown logic king, truth queen and values and creativity subordinate are not these individuals. And to each his own . . .

So, what is your point? Many people have been troubled and have done excellent things. In many cases, such as Nietzsche's, their troubles were integral to their excellence. Many people may not agree with Nietzsche or may find his word to be rather distasteful, but it is hard to deny that his look into the irrational side of human nature sheds much truth upon the nature of human existence.

It is hard to know what you mean by "crowning logic as king". People who think we need to use logic are not worshiping logic any more that people who think that food is necessary, are worshiping food. They are just saying that we cannot do without logic anymore than without food. I see that you follow Nietzsche in exaggeration. Hasn't your mother told you at least a trillion times you should not exaggerate?

Hasn't my mother told me not to exaggerate? I'm sure that someone told me, but I can't remember who it was. I should pose that question back at you, because you're exaggerating the meaning of my words. I'll give you a pass, though, because it was an aphorism.

I wouldn't say that we need logic. We do need logic for certain things, but it is fallacious to compare the necessity of logic to the necessity of food. That's a blatantly false analogy. I'm not saying that logic or reason should be rejected, though. What I am saying is that we humans need values just as much as we need logic (if not more). Nietzsche believed the value of logic and truth was secondary to axiological values. I appreciate the value of logic but if I had a choice between logic and truth and ethics and aesthetics, I would choose the latter two.

I understand your vivid disdain for Nietzsche. You are very much in the vain of the analytic tradition and Nietzsche's approach to philosophy is the antithesis of the analytic approach. Nietzsche did not focus on rigid logic or epistemology . . . nor did he focus on rigid system building. In fact, one of the things that make his philosophy so attractive is its water like adaptability. In light of a world where there is no natural moral order, a world where even the systems of humanity are often subject to disorder and failure, an axiological philosophy of affirmation can been as realistic and practical. I have no problem with analytic philosophy, but IMO a philosophy without the continentals, or without the analytics, would be an incomplete story. I tend to side more with analytics on fields like epistemology, logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, but IMO their rigid system building does not work well with ethics and aesthetics.

Now I have no problem with those who don't find Nietzsche's approach to axiology appealing. However what I find most curious is the cynical, personal tone they often betray. They begin to sound like the very man they criticize and therefore conclude in hypocrisy. This leads me to believe that the disdain that some analytics have for the man is grounded more in the ego than anything else. This would be in line with Nietzsche's idea of every living body being an incarnate will to power.

What that said I will once again say to each his own . . .

Apart from his telling us that God is dead; that we should get beyond good and evil (and pull our socks up); and that there are many perspectives on the same thing (if there is anything) but that none of them are correct or incorrect; is there anything else Nietzsche informed us about that I should know?