I think that you definitely did hit on something. One of the reasons I post things like this is I like to see what other people's impressions are of what is said. Nietzsche was well aware of the dualities inherent in the universe, and often did voice this in his writings, and whether he was voicing it with regard to his own self, seemed to not hold that much weight for him, perhaps he just voiced it regardless, to see where it took him . . . so yes, I think that he was, to some degree a bit vain, but Nietzsche was was no stranger to self-criticism . . . If you happen to read the later edition of his "Birth of a Tragedy", it actually starts out with a title, "An attempt at Self Criticism." (I would highly recommend at least the first part of Birth of a Tragedy, although the second part really fails, in my view.) Nietzsche, least of all, wrote what he wrote in an attempt to proselytize anyone, his goal was to only provoke thought, he said that himself.

This is from part 5 of his "AN ATTEMPT AT SELF-CRITICISM.":

Christianity, as being the most extravagant burlesque of the moral theme to which mankind has hitherto been obliged to listen. In fact, to the purely æsthetic world-interpretation and justification taught in this book, there is no greater antithesis than the Christian dogma, which is only and will be only moral, and which, with its absolute standards, for instance, its truthfulness[Pg 10] of God, relegates—that is, disowns, convicts, condemns—art, all art, to the realm of falsehood. Behind such a mode of thought and valuation, which, if at all genuine, must be hostile to art, I always experienced what was hostile to life, the wrathful, vindictive counterwill to life itself: for all life rests on appearance, art, illusion, optics, necessity of perspective and error. From the very first Christianity was, essentially and thoroughly, the nausea and surfeit of Life for Life, which only disguised, concealed and decked itself out under the belief in "another" or "better" life. The hatred of the "world," the curse on the affections, the fear of beauty and sensuality, another world, invented for the purpose of slandering this world the more, at bottom a longing for. Nothingness, for the end, for rest, for the "Sabbath of Sabbaths"—all this, as also the unconditional will of Christianity to recognize only moral values, has always appeared to me as the most dangerous and ominous of all possible forms of a "will to perish"; at the least, as the symptom of a most fatal disease, of profoundest weariness, despondency, exhaustion, impoverishment of life,—for before the tribunal of morality (especially Christian, that is, unconditional morality) life must constantly and inevitably be the loser, because life is something essentially unmoral,—indeed, oppressed with the weight of contempt and the everlasting No, life must finally be regarded as unworthy of desire, as in itself unworthy. Morality itself what?—may not morality be a "will to disown life," a secret instinct for annihilation, a principle[Pg 11] of decay, of depreciation, of slander, a beginning of the end? And, consequently, the danger of dangers?... It was against morality, therefore, that my instinct, as an intercessory-instinct for life, turned in this questionable book, inventing for itself a fundamental counter—dogma and counter-valuation of life, purely artistic, purely anti-Christian. What should I call it? As a philologist and man of words I baptized it, not without some liberty—for who could be sure of the proper name of the Antichrist?—with the name of a Greek god: I called it Dionysian.

@Archeus_Lore Well whether Nietzsche was being vain in this particular passage, isn't the main issue, and certainly not something I myself would nail him to the cross for. Some level of vanity at times is a natural part of the human condition. I think I felt a need to point out the possibility because he was pointing it out and it seemed like an unjust, blanket criticism he was making that was too open-ended. You weren't quite sure where the exact criticism was meant to land.

I haven't read any of his works and have only the very vaguest ideas on it. Though in one thing I came across today it said he was in fact a proponent of a secular type of asceticism. Another thing I read said no he wasn't. And yet another said, yes he was, sometimes. So when I think I have some grasp on a clearer idea, it turns out, I know nothing. He certainly did have a way of expressing himself! It's something to read for that aspect alone. Though he's often not an easy read. I often feel a base level of disagreement when I come across his quotes, but then when I read another's breakdown of it or interpretation, I am more in agreement than disagreement. Even the second passage you posted tends to evoke a feeling of vexation. Why is that exactly? Do not know. I can't say I fully disagree with all that is said in it.

What some may have an issue with when reading Nietzsche is just the need that some feel to have everything nailed down and secured, immobile and static as "facts", doctrine. Whether that applies to you or not, you are the best judge of that.
Nietzsche was not one to consider things to be static in many ways, in my own view. Maximums like "Whatever is done from love occurs beyond good and evil." do not say what is good, or what is evil, because there are many ways of looking at actions, and often there is a mix of good and evil, and even the process of judging what is good and evil are in question.

My favorite from Nietzsche is as follows:

"The Sage as an Astronomer: If you still see the stars as something above you, you lack the eye of knowledge."

@Archeus_Lore I may have found the problem. I encountered the term anti-humanist today. Then I heard this "According to Nietszche humanism was nothing more than an empty figure of speech, a secular version of theism." So there is his problem. Well one of his problems. Anti- humanism is an illogical position for any person concerned with human progess.

I don't think everything he said should be discounted, but he certainly does throw us all off kilter. You can see how his words in the wrong hands could spell, BIG PROBLEMS. And I guess this really was the case at one point in history. I don't know much about this aspect of history myself. On the other hand, you feel he acheives something that is very unique. For instance " If you still see the stars as something above you, you lack the eye of knowledge." How did he come to formulate this thought? What lead him there? Maybe similar ideas have been expressed by other philosophers, but if so, I haven't heard them. This is an idea that stands as worthwhile, whereas some of his others do not, imo. I feel there is another aspect that is there that I haven't heard explained yet by anyone that I've listened too talk about him. I think I would like to read the specific instances in his texts where he takes this anti-humanist position. I would like to see what is exactly said. Maybe then I would understand.

It's a mixed bag, there are some things that he says that I cannot agree with, and some things that are pretty darn enlightening. One must always keep in mind that he lived in a vastly different time, before nuclear weapons, he also worked as a medic in (I think it was the Franco-Prussian War), so there are a lot of things that have to be considered, and, I am extremely cautious with making judgments on people who lived in different times and cultures, because it is idiotic to do so, because there is just no way you can understand all of the factors involved that shaped their thoughts. We automatically try to apply what they wrote to OUR time and point of view, we are automatically biased.

"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. I have only begun to learn content and peace of mind since I have resolved at all risks to do this." Thomas Henry Huxley

@Archeus_Lore We are all biased in our pov in history. I can understand a little bit more an anti-humanist perspective coming from a medic in a war, in fact it would probably make both sides of the arguement dig heels in even more, one coming from a perspective of the present hellish reality of war and death, the other, hopeful of a brighter future, but I mean if there was a discussion of that sort, just hypotherically speaking. I didn't say everything should be discounted anyway.

This Huxley quote is perfectly applied to the topic at hand. Thanks for posting it.

@Archeus_Lore "According to Nietszche humanism was nothing more than an empty figure of speech, a secular version of theism." I'm not sure if this is something I should have even copied and posted. It is from wikipedia.

Kind of like today's folks who believe all that the media feeds them?

"There is an “Abysmal contradiction,” however, as we have here both a need for aristocratic stability confronting a “Dynamic conception of individual self-improvement.” this became evident in “Beyond Good and Evil.” ( 1885)" Can you explain this to someone who is unfamiliar with the writing? Just this line, what is meant? Is it a reference to the need in culture or government, or both?

"the downward leveling of man as a threat" This was a very insightful way of viewing the possible dangers that could exist in a democratic society. What role do citizens expect the media to play in a fair process? How does a society prevent the inevitable accumulation of advantage at the top to prevent a bindingly helpless underclass?

Seems like it should be the other way around, going to fucking go anyway, the closer to the abyss, what difference does it make . . . . but experience also tempers it some.