Um, the problem with your "philosophy" is that you're trying to take a rather diverse issue (remakes can be done differently, have all kinds of relationship to "the original", in content and quality, there can be different intents behind it, etc.), and reach a simple conclusion like "this is inherently wrong".

Which is absurd in itself.

It makes much more sense to just look at individual works, or groups of works, and evaluate them in how well they work in whatever aspect, rather than strive for some universal conclusion about a certain approach being "wrong" by principle.

Someone will say that once a composer has recorded their own composition, there's no need for others to "play the same piece, too". I mean, dead composers who never recorded their music, ok, that's kind of needed, but in this case? WHERE'S ALL THE CREATIVITY GONE?
Then another will try to argue that you should either play it accurately, or compose something on your own. Recording someone else's composition, just with some different phrasings, ornamentations and other kinds of tweaks, is a total no-go. It's a BASTARDIZATION.

Then you've got someone who's listened to the same solo, or jazz improvization, for a long time, and proceeds to learn and record it, identically or maybe with some "tweaks" of his own.
But then some dude will step in and say that it was an improvization, not a composition, and shouldn't be copied.

You know what my answer is? FUCK ALL THAT.

Why do you need some particular "reason" to validate a remake? Like, there either should be some compelling necessity for it to exist, or just don't make it? Well, *why* that, please?
Someone has an idea how a movie could look with different actors and mood, but essentially the same storyline (because it's already cool as it is). He doesn't want to change the names, because then it'll look like a rip-off, but he also wants to do the same story, and some similar one with "comparable tropes", because THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE WORK.

Take the "original", and give it a different spin, ornamentation, color.
If someone wants to do (or see) a "spiritual successor" instead, then they'll free to do that, too.

Think in terms of a PLAY, like you attempt to do all the time. Different directors keep staging the same play, in different settings, with different actors, with different tweaks. And it can ALL BE INTERESTING, despite being the same work all over again.
Same with a movie remake. You take what is essentially the same "script", plus some cinematic features maybe (just as the director of the play will probably be influenced by other stagings). and dress it up differently.

Someone wanted to do "True Grit" with a drunk, grumpy Jeff Bridges, instead of the classic straight-up John Wayane.
May I ask you, what is the necessity for that someone, to toss away that idea, and instead write some new Western with Jeff Bridges as a mentor figure in it? WHY?
Peter Jackson wanted to remake KING KONG. Complete with the obsessed director, the blonde, pure starlet, a raunchy manly captain, menacing natives, and a GIANT GORILLA. His remake had a LOT OF AWESOME in it.
So what, should he have said "no, a remake isn't valid, I should do something inspired by the original King Kong", and then, what? Do another movie with a giant Gorilla, just named differently? In a jungle, not on an island? But including the Empire State Building as a "homage"? Maybe replaced the crew? Done it with a giant Chimpanzee instead?

Oh wait, no, he wanted to make a new KING KONG. So where does your philosophy come into any of that?

PS:
Pianists play Cziffra's arrangements by transcribing his RECORDINGS, which he didn't write down.
They play Liszt's arrangements, by learning the scores.

The first example is a movie, the second is a play.
A pianist plays 2 encores, first is Liszt's Galop (most certainly influenced by other performances), second Cziffra's Tritsch Tratsch Polka (obviously influenced by his own recording(s), and others'). WHERE'S THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE??

Depeche Mode write a mellow song about Jesus.
Marilyn Manson, a fan, has an awesome idea of singing the same song in his own raunchy style, putting a cynical (or Satanic, whatever you want) spin on it by delivery alone.

So he basically took someone else's song, that WASN'T MEANT TO BE REWRITTEN, sang it word for word, but BASTARDIZED both its sound, and its meaning.
And it's COMPLETELY AWESOME (dare I say, way better than the original, although that's just me).
But I guess according to "philosophy", he "shouldn't have done that".