Do people still think Nietzsche's view of history is 100% correct? Why?

Question

History is not progressive? When a more modern culture comes into contact with a less modern culture, is the civilization process automatically destructive?

Answer 1

I would think, just based on what you stated above ,and without delving into Nietzsche's works(been many years) that it is quite subjective.  The less modern culture tends to get absorbed by the more modern one, losing much of their individual identity to "progress".  Look at any interactions between the tribes that had no other human contact, and then were subjected to it. Many of their ways changed to the more modern ways.  Look at what the forced opening and modernization of Japan had led to.  There will still remain a part of the original culture, but the majority will modernize.

   Where this is subjective is where the question of "destructive" lies.  Different individuals view the destruction of a culture different ways.  One might say that an undiscovered tribe that is suddenly offered new culture and technology would be bettered, whereas another individual might think that the soul has been taken from the "lesser" civilization, resulting in their "destruction".  As for my feeling, it would have to be based on the culture that is being changed.

Answer 2

Better not to think that Nietzsche is 100% ccorrect about anything. Hegel, I think was more correct concerning history.

Just because the so called more advanced (I know you said modern, I am just trying to be inflammatory) cultures usually or sometimes clash with and harm the less modern cultures that they come into contact with doesn't mean that that is always the case or will always be the case or that the effect is not divided between some harmful and destructive and some helpful and beneficial effects.

I love and sympathize with Nietzsche, but because he was so human and so imperfect. To me he is like a flawed compass that can point you in a certain direction with no assurance that you find what you expect when you arrive at your destination, you will get a lot of exercise along the way though.

Must confess I have not studied him in more than 20 years and can no longer consider myself able to comment with authority.

But certainly to change a culture is to destroy  some aspect (the changed aspect) of it either partially or wholly. If a thing was once present and is then gone it has been destroyed even it was also transformed, it is gone.

Answer 3

Nietzsche failed in solving any actual problems. In contrast to Schopenhauer (1788-1860), who assumed a pessimistic attitude toward life and said that the essence of world is the blind will to life, Nietzsche (1848-1900; when was it that Oxygen was finally put on the periodic chart of elements?) stated that the essence of the world is a “will to power,” and assumed an attitude of thoroughly affirming life. The “will to power” is the will to seek to be strong, and to control. He established the concept of the “superman” as an ideal image embodying this will to power, and asserted that the human being must endure any fate and must be ready to suffer any pain which life presents in the process of striving to achieve the status of a “superman.” Nietzsche radically denied Christianity and proclaimed that God was dead. He asserted that Christian morality sympathizes with the weak, denies the strong, and opposes the essence of life and is, in effect, a slave morality. Consequently, his view represents a denial of a persuasive traditional view of value. His concept of the “will to power” led to the adoption of force as a way of solving actual real-world problems. Hitler and Mussolini would later make use of Nietzsche’s words as a means of maintaining their power. His failure is that he denied the true God. What he should have denied is only the false God. Yet, the only God he knew was the false God, and in his denial he came to deny even the true God. Thus, he was destined to fail from the beginning.

Answer 4

What do you mean still?  When did any large group of people consider ANY philsopher 100% correct about anything?