Edit: This will be a long post (eventually), I will be editing it to include multiple parts overtime; I don't advise you to read them all in one sitting.

Part 1:

I had a moment earlier today talking to a young adult also into philosophy, he told me he was discouraged because he may never create something as good as all these great minds. And so I was like...

(Paraphrasing) Right now, it's like mimetics, you're imitating innovators, you're inspired to create just as these other innovators were. And that's a phenomenal trait to have. And I'll bet that you already understood a good deal of the philosophy you have read, intuitively out of your own experience, they simply put words to your truths. So love them as your truths. That just means they got lower-hanging fruit. But someday you'll come up against the edge of a cliff and it will be up to you to take that dangerous crossing, and this is why Nietzsche chose to remind everyone that harnessing our Dionysian Human instincts, to cherish a bit of danger now and again, is essential to even take the first step of that dangerous crossing. We've become sick on our cowardly compromise, such that most are too afraid to make that dangerous crossing because we will be rejected by the masses... but when you do come up to that edge, it will be up to you and you alone to make the dangerous crossing your bitch...and even if you fail, theres nothing contemptible in that.

And then I was struck by that lightning Nietzsche often talks about (though I already knew some of these fragments). Man is that rope that intertwines, and exists between, the animal and the superman. What is great in man is that he is a bridge...

Just as Nietzsche details of all values in Beyond Good and Evil (BGE):

For all the value which the true, genuine, unselfish man may be entitled to, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for everything in life must be ascribed to appearance, the will for deception, self-interest, and desire. It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things . Perhaps! — Nietzsche, BGE 2

It is us, humans, that create those values, it is us who are the rope between those two values, just as man is the rope over and abyss between the animal and the superman...

As in we understand the values of "good" and "evil" because they are essentially what makes us human. It was said that the Dionysian is that which has corrupted man for the past several millennia. But the Dionysian existed before Judaeo-Christian morality attempted to suffocate half of what makes us whole. Shunning half of our nature such that people are sickened on cowardly compromise. This is a thread from Birth of Tragedy to his very last book...

And to all those who say "Uhhh his earlier stuff doesn't mesh with his older stuff." :grimace: and there are those here...

Nietzsche had an early experimental phase with writing, and then an epiphany occurred...

He was going to produce his work much in the same manner as BGE 2... this is why from Human All Too Human (HATH) up to but not including Thus Spoke Zarathustra (TSZ) he details as his "yea" saying years. From BGE to Twilight of the Idols (ToI) is his "nay" saying years as he details in Ecce Homo (EH):

My work for the years that followed was prescribed as distinctly as possible. Now that the yea-saying part of my life-task was accomplished there came the turn of the negative portion, both in word and deed: the transvaluation of all values that had existed hitherto, the great war,—the conjuring-up of the day when the fatal outcome of the struggle would be decided. — Nietzsche, EH § BGE

And what of Thus Spoke Zarathustra you may ask, or perhaps already surmised: Zarathustra is the Chord that intertwines those two fine and respectable periods of Nietzsche's writings... the chord between his works. This is why TSZ was written as a rubric of literary music known as a Dithyramb as Nietzsche details in Ecce Homo:

The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music. At all events, the essential condition of its production was a second birth within me of the art of hearing.... I am the inventor of the dithyramb.... The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude, or, if I have been understood, in honour of purity. Thank Heaven, it is not in honour of "pure foolery"! He who has an eye for colour will call him a diamond. The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing? — Nietzsche EH § TSZ

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is special because it doesn't speak to the Apollonian consciousness, but rather the Dionysian intuition, this is as he details of Dithyrambs in Birth of Tragedy:

In the Dionysian dithyramb man is incited to the highest exaltation of all his symbolic faculties; something never before experienced struggles for utterance—the annihilation of the veil of Mâyâ, Oneness as genius of the race, ay, of nature. The essence of nature is now to be expressed symbolically; a new world of symbols is required; for once the entire symbolism of the body, not only the symbolism of the lips, face, and speech, but the whole pantomime of dancing which sets all the members into rhythmical motion. Thereupon the other symbolic powers, those of music, in rhythmics, dynamics, and harmony, suddenly become impetuous. To comprehend this collective discharge of all the symbolic powers, a man must have already attained that height of self-abnegation, which wills to express itself symbolically through these powers: the Dithyrambic votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! With what astonishment must the Apollonian Greek have beheld him! With an astonishment, which was all the greater the more it was mingled with the shuddering suspicion that all this was in reality not so very foreign to him, yea, that, like unto a veil, his Apollonian consciousness only hid this Dionysian world from his view. — Nietzsche § 2 BoT

That is why TSZ should generally be read last even after Ecce Homo, such that you understand the rhyme and rhythm within the story is meant to be that lightning which licks you from complacency or to be of the Apollonian only persuasion and blink there by claiming "we have already found happiness!"

But most wont even understand that after "reading all of his books!" Most will attempt to discredit Nietzsche by projecting their own poor understanding and moral bias upon his words as if he ascribed to their framework. But in reality they're just afriad of fully accepting what it means to be human, sickened on cowardly compromise. But it takes accepting both the Good and the Bad of human nature to understand what Nietzsche says in his first Aphorism of BoT:

both these so heterogeneous tendencies run parallel to each other, for the most part openly at variance, and continually inciting each other to new and more powerful births, to perpetuate in them the strife of this antithesis, which is but seemingly bridged over by their mutual term

Which is how he modeled his philosophy from HATH to TI. The Yea saying and Nay saying periods bound together by a mutual chord... Zarathustra.

‐---------Break----------

Editing to add more, so as to not feign writing for bumping a post. Mihi Ipsi Scripsi after all... A16:25
Part 2:

It is important to harden oneself against the love of their neighbors as the charm of knowledge would be slight were there not so much embarrassment to overcome on the route to knowledge. Those impetuous dyspectics, those ruminants who cannot digest know no bliss as they churn their chud into venom. A venom which distorts themselves from itself: ressentiment. Resentment towards difference. "The true" objective world that denies all perspective, that is the safe haven of these types. Our knowledge would have ended long ago with God should we have all remained in agreement with our neighbors.

The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: “What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;” he knows that it is he himself only who confers honor on things; he is a creator of values. He honors whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. — Nietzsche, BGE § 260

Do you understand what I'm saying? It is we, our very selves who determines the value of what is "Good" and what is "Bad" it is we who are the chord between these two values. One is either the idiot of their idiom or a koinonos of a koinonia.

What is noble? What does the word "noble" still mean to us nowadays? What reveals the noble human being, how do people recognize him, under this heavy, oppressive sky at the beginning of the rule of the rabble, which is making everything opaque and leaden? - It is not the actions which prove him - actions are always ambiguous, always inscrutable -; nor is it the "works." Among artists and scholars today we find a sufficient number of those who through their works reveal how a profound desire for what is noble drives them: but this very need for what is noble is fundamentally different from the needs of the noble soul itself and is really the eloquent and dangerous indication that such a soul is lacking. It's not the works; it's the belief which decides here, which here establishes the order of rank, to take up once more an old religious formula with a new and more profound understanding: some basic certainty which a noble soul has about itself, something which does not allow itself to be sought out or found or perhaps even to be lost. The noble soul has reverence for itself. — Nietzsche, BGE § 287