Debating topics

[Chaerophon]

While fulfillment of one's own will to power is an interesting goal of "humanity" the discrete individuals of humanity all exercising the fulfilled power will induce conflict, chaos, or both. So be it.

As you know, that didn't really concern Nietzsche (not as far as I can tell, anyways).

Yep. Just like a terrorist. Tis easier to destroy than to build and sustain. As well, tis easier to analyze than synthesize, in my opinion.

Oh trust me, a part of me agrees with you on that. However, I also believe that the individual can become stronger through the contemplation of their place in the world. No one stimulates more thought in that regard than Nietzsche. In many ways, despite its seeming lack of 'synthesis', as you put it, I do find his philosophy of the will to be persuasive and informative - even in my daily life.

His suggestion is as absurd. Reform the language? Make it a better tool? Sure. Build one from scratch?

I would suggest that in some minimal sense, he managed to actually accomplish his goal. The modern language of philosophy and, more importantly, politics has clearly been heavily influenced by his work. While it may be a stretch to say that he 'created' these modern metaphorical systems, one can certainly see his influence in any number of modern political and philosophical discourses (particularly with regard to power structures in international relations, e.g. Neo-Marxist/Neo-Gramscian, Foucault, etc.).

As to God is dead, etc.

The assertion, if that is what Nietzsche actually said, is self-contradictory. God is, by convention, omnipresent and hence immortal, beyond the bounds of life and death. If God were to be, God would always have been and will awlays be. If God never were, God could not be dead, for to be dead God must have been, and been alive, in the first place. Once having been, being God, could never not be. This is based on God within the standard understanding of the typical person in the 1800's. Not just any old god, but God.

This is an interesting little bit. It almost falls into the old pattern of the 'ontological argument', but I'm not sure that it quite gets there. Still don't like the t-shirt, for obvious reasons that aren't really dealt with by your example. :P