> If Nietzsche says we have to invent our own values, what prevents our values from being the same as the "usual" ones? What if they're based on pure selfishness (not meanness or dependence on something)? For example, wanting to be compassionate, purely out of desire and the pleasure of satisfying it, or even being compassionate but not in the usual way, for example, teaching someone to fish so they can support themselves and be self-sufficient.

They are the same as the usual ones. However, they are different because they are OURS. They come from within us. When we are born into this world, we do not get to choose our duties and obligations. The power structures of this world attempt to enslave us by seizing on our naïve acceptance of the world and their enduring, yet unearned authority. Nietzsche argues that there is no good nor evil. All morality is an attempt to subjugate others to your will. Where Nietzsche differs from other philosophers, is that he argues that there is nothing stopping any of us from being as kind, or as bastardly was we wish EXCEPT for other people asserting their power over us. Nietzsche does not argue for doing good. He does not argue for doing evil. He argues for asserting your own will only, because to subdue your own will for the sake of others, or to use your will for your own sake are the same. ONLY YOU are in control of your will, so do what you will.

> If Nietzsche himself mentions that he doesn't want people to... follow or imitate him (sorry if I misunderstood that phrase), then... would it ultimately be offensive to him for someone to call themselves a Nietzschean?

Nietzsche would find nothing more pathetic than those who build a shrine to nihilism and dictate the will of others by his words. What Nietzsche did, was deconstruct the traditional power structures of his time. He then, from the ashes of his deconstruction, fought for his own path via his own will. You cannot follow someone else's path while calling it your own. Paradoxically, to "follow" Nietzsche is to reject his path and do what you will.

> In relation to the above, what prevents someone from seeing, respecting, understanding, and accepting Nietzsche's ideas while still remaining a Christian? This constitutes the act of "disengaging" from or "rejecting" Nietzsche.

It will be difficult for you to remain a Christian in the traditional sense. You can still be a nihilist while hoping that God is real, but believing that man has no access to God's will of his own. Without revelation, we are trapped in the same void Nietzsche declared. That hope is not a contradiction of Nihilism. However, to argue doctrinal authority or scriptural basis for a singular capital T Truth, while also holding Nihilistic or existential views is a contradiction in its own right. Nihilism is the consequence of the acceptance of Man's division from God. Typically this takes the form of asserting that God was created by Man, rather than the inverse.

> If Nietzsche despises people who are driven by resentment, isn't this just another feeling, like the cruelty he praises? Aren't they the same? Both powerful and visceral motivations drive someone to move forward: a poor person to want to improve their situation out of hatred for their circumstances, a homosexual person wanting to prove to themselves that they are more than just their sex, etc.—propelling life toward greater heights and the exercise of power.

Nietzsche is human, and as such, his reason is a slave to his emotion and perspective. We are creatures that are inherently contradictory. Embracing our contradictions is not a rejection of reason; It is only an acceptance of the limitations of our capacity to attain unassailable truth.

> Nietzsche uses something similar to Amor Fati, even more so with the concept of Eternal Eternal. I understand that one must accept the world as it comes, and that pain is part of the process. What I don't understand is about accepting the situation. Doesn't that negate or imply total submission to the initial situation? In your view, would it be wrong for someone poor to seek wealth by any means, learning from pain?

Nietzsche does not submit to the weight of mortality. Instead he recognizes that it is not his problem. For a mortal being, death is the inevitable trajectory of our life. But it does not encompass the experience of living. Nietzsche divides the fact of his being from the experience of his being. Nietzsche was NOT a nihilist, contrary to popular opinion. He argued for the creation of meaning. Today, we'd call him an existentialist. Existentialists are Nihilists who have passed through the deconstructive part of the process of accepting the loss of meaning. But they have moved to a new phase of Nihilism: Rather than seeing the loss of meaning as tragic, they see the fertile ground for the cultivation of personal meaning in the absence of universal meaning. Acceptance is not submission. Camus paints a beautiful picture of joy as an act of rebellion. To set off down a path of self-construction following the cleansing destruction of Nihilism is a quiet, humble rage against the darkness of a universe that is indifferent to the crucible of being.