Initial Response: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense

I'd already read this piece, but it was a while ago so I decided to re-read it anyway. I'm a fan of Neitzsche, I've read most of his work I think. It's hard to write about someone who you like, it'd be kind of pointless if I was just like, yeah, I agree with him.
One thing everyone notes about Neitzsche, noted in the autor information ere even, is his friendship/role-dance with Wagner and his religious upbringing opposed to the turn he took against religion.
In debate in high school I once quoted Nietzsche (I should've known better to quote anyone), my ribal retaliated stating that Nietzsche was an archetype of the rebellious teenager who happened to be a genius. It made me look bad in debate.
People often misinterpret Nietzsche in that way, (there are a lot of other ways they mis-interpret him, though, for instance Hitler looked up to Nietzsche, that doesn't make Nietzsche bad, though). A lot of his ideas are fairly basic, rooted in cultures of prehistory. Especially in his Ubermensch theory, he sort of denies the value or positive aspects of society's change.
A lot of this, I think, stems from his cultural background. He tends, in his formal writing, not to present his entire thought process, making himself appear to deny or inadequately attempt a holistic approach.
The obviouscontradiction, one of my least favorite aspects of Nietzsche, and all of those "knowledge is pointless" writers, even Plato, is that they are denouncing something that they claim to have, touring around, giving lectures on it even.
His upbringing (Mid-late 1800s Germany), kind of a seedy place in time, also definitely affected his writing, but I won't really go into that.
A counter philosophy, or thought, is that philosophy should start with analyzation of the self before moving outward, which is not, that I knwo of, present in Nietzsche's work. He always seems to view himself as the only person who can move in and out of the cave (Plato's metaphor) and uses this ability to go harvest great knowledge then come in and complain to the people still standing around idly inside the cave.
However, the man is a genius with a lot of insightful writing.
People who are his fans, also, usually view Nietzsche as some sort of "really together guy" who has it all figured out, but almost everything I can see in his writing would say that he's sort of a neurotic, embittered, and later in his life, painfully tortured man (when his eyesight failed and he wasn't able to partake in his beloved sport of reading). He's also often pushing the reader away. Seeming to insult the reader, causing the reader to either want to elevate themselves to his level, or deny his writing entirely. Still, most of it is written in such a high-handed way, he's denying passive readers, or people who just can't read and are probably kind of idiots, he's immediately denying them from his writing.
I just got interrupted, I'll write more later.