You're saying that because he's respected by some academics, he is objectively worthy of respect. But that's contingent on those very same academics being worthy of respect. And I'm not sure that they are, personally.
This is a major problem in academia and other areas. The academics end up being judged by fellow academics, and any claim to merit becomes completely circular. That's how you end up with things like Brutalist architecture -- it's because the architects are seeking approval from fellow architects; and not the people who have to live in, and around, what they build.
Even worse, those academics who "suck up" to other academics end up having the favour returned to them. He scratches your back, you scratch his, then he scratches yours again... You end up with citation rings.
The person you're responding to never made a claim to objectivity. The fact that someone is one of the most influential figures in the history of twentieth century thought and culture is, in my view, a very good reason to engage with them. If you care about our common world, and its history, then you may well want to understand Nietzsche.
You're saying that because he's respected by some academics, he is objectively worthy of respect. But that's contingent on those very same academics being worthy of respect. And I'm not sure that they are, personally.
This is a major problem in academia and other areas. The academics end up being judged by fellow academics, and any claim to merit becomes completely circular. That's how you end up with things like Brutalist architecture -- it's because the architects are seeking approval from fellow architects; and not the people who have to live in, and around, what they build.
Even worse, those academics who "suck up" to other academics end up having the favour returned to them. He scratches your back, you scratch his, then he scratches yours again... You end up with citation rings.
See Taleb's Skin In The Game.