This article is more about creativity than love. I wrote something else on spiritual love (link below, if you're interested).

There might be some cowardice involved in not admitting that love is possible or that you're in love. An Overman wouldn't fear nature in that sense, but neither would the hero rationalize love by spiritualizing it or holding out the unrealistic hope of supernatural rewards.

I believe Nietzsche says an Overman might be charitable in the sense of being naturally generous (an outpouring of his creative energy), but the Overman wouldn't be committed to any principle of unconditional brotherly love. That egalitarianism would be unnatural, so the Overman would honour natural divisions between genders, social classes, and the weak and the strong rather than pretending they don't exist.

But that ends up being somewhat incoherent. If you value creativity, you value at least the potential for transformations of nature. I've written a lot about this (the artificial, Promethean transformation of the wilderness). Nietzsche's social Darwinism doesn't sit well with his emphases on creativity and on aesthetic meaning.

https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/the-shams-of-spiritual-love-490654259a08?source=friends_link&sk=0e51101075beaef7d47d49cfe7a49b46

Knowledge condemns. Art redeems. I learned that as an artistic writer who did a doctorate in philosophy. We should try to see the dark comedy in all things.

Knowledge condemns. Art redeems. I learned that as an artistic writer who did a doctorate in philosophy. We should try to see the dark comedy in all things.