> Nietzsche cannot honestly substitute his view of nature for the Stoics and fairly criticize them for the contradictions that arise.
His argument is that, because Nature is not as the Stoics describe it, they cannot be living as they claim to be. The contradiction doesn't arise from Nietzsche making that substitution, but from the Stoics having mischaracterised Nature to begin with (according to his view of Nature).
He demonstrates the contradiction by describing what living in accordance with Nature would really look like, and it's not what the Stoics claim to be doing. He’s not arguing in bad faith or from ignorance. He’s trying to show that Stoic ethics are ungrounded because their view of Nature is wrong, which isn't all that different to his arguments against Christianity. Once "God is dead" you don't get to keep the ethical framework that's logically grounded on his existence.
His argument is that, because Nature is not as the Stoics describe it, they cannot be living as they claim to be. The contradiction doesn't arise from Nietzsche making that substitution, but from the Stoics having mischaracterised Nature to begin with (according to his view of Nature).
He demonstrates the contradiction by describing what living in accordance with Nature would really look like, and it's not what the Stoics claim to be doing. He’s not arguing in bad faith or from ignorance. He’s trying to show that Stoic ethics are ungrounded because their view of Nature is wrong, which isn't all that different to his arguments against Christianity. Once "God is dead" you don't get to keep the ethical framework that's logically grounded on his existence.