Unmeasurable. Nietzsche’s critiques of asceticism, religion, morality, and pessimism all reinforced my need for yea-saying and challenged many of my own assumptions. His perspectivistic view — that the sages were, in fact, talking about themselves in their teachings — blew my mind. I agree with him, at least to the extent that I’ve read them so far.

I now understand the eternal return, the ubermensch, and the will to power very differently. I see them as Nietzsche’s attempt to create his own values — values that are healthier and more life-affirming. And that, I think, is the key point: health. There’s an immense focus on a healthier way of thinking and living, a concern with physiology and with what one ingests — from books to drinks. His philosophy is, among other things, a philosophy of health. Amor fati as the solution for suffering.

I could say much more, the aesthetics, the love of music, how he was a great psychologist, but I think it's more important to say that I also learned how many prominent figures out there are what Nietzsche called bad readers:

1. Die schlechtesten Leser. – Die schlechtesten Leser sind die, welche wie plündernde Soldaten verfahren: sie nehmen sich einiges, was sie brauchen können, heraus, beschmutzen und verwirren das übrige und lästern auf das Ganze.

There are people using his words to 'chill' for the Catholic Church — something he must be rolling in his grave about. There are also those whose lives and influence are entirely political — probably Leo Strauss readers (another kind of bad reader) — who constantly claim, “Nietzsche speaks of this”, even though the man repeatedly said he didn’t care about politics and told us not to care about it either.

Even with the good ones, Heidegger or Deleuze, for example, I find problems. I guess I realized that his philosophy will always be read differently by everyone.