Nietzsche's sole concern, throughout all his works, is the production of higher men - be it under the name of "genius" or "overman", among others.

I think one's philosophy cannot be separated from one's philosophy about philosophy. For instance, I am an adherent of Nietzsche's philosophy of will to power. Therefore, I must conclude that the end to which my philosophy is a means is power. Likewise, if you were consistent, your philosophy about philosophy would be rogative: "Why do I want to ask better questions?"

I am a self-proclaimed Nietzschean Fundamentalist. My ambition, at the moment, is to construct a fundamentally Nietzschean "state in thought". This has everything to do with pursuing private perfection, indeed, it is in the first place a pursuit of private perfection: I want to make clear to myself what I think, what my ideal state would look like, therefore I have to cut it out of the rocks of obscurity. Consciousness is internal communication. I want to make my ideal state conscious: therefore I have to communicate it.

Presenting oneself as ethical may get one the support of (i.e., power over) those who believe in morality. And believing in it, i.e., unconsciously lying about it (to oneself and others), is a consequence of the will to power: as Nietzsche says, when something has a greater effect if unconscious, it will become unconscious. So those who believe in morality do so only to increase or consolidate their own power.

Why acquire power? What is one to do with power? I think all power is the power to will. So the will to power is really will to power to will to power etc. But will is a pathos, i.e., something passive - a passion. But this passion can be enjoyed or suffered. A human being is really like a conscious stone. The stone is rolling downhill, and can do nothing about it, but it may think, and feel, that it is in control. It is this feeling which is pleasurable. The stone may say, "Yes! I'm rolling downhill! That is precisely what I want to do!", or it may say, "Oh no! I'm rolling downhill! I don't want to! Help!" The former is self-affirmation; the latter is self-denial. And there is no free choice between them. But the denier also denies his own denial; whereas the affirmer affirms his own affirmation. A double negative is a positive, but a double positive is not a negative. So all existence is positive, even though it may seem negative from a negative perspective.

The heart? Do you mean that blood-pumping muscle in the left side of the chest? If not, what do you mean.

"I propose we start a sauwelios fan club! Your artful integration, through thought, of science and philosophy to create relative, applicable, and potent points is an inspiration to those of us that believe in the beauty of the real philosophical experience."

When we regard the mother as a unit, it is we who have distinguished her from the womb that is society. We can do the same for the child. Now suppose we regard the mother as 1: does she remain 1 when she eats, or when she excretes, or when she loses a limb? Does she have a distinct, imperishable essence that is 1?

We may call the universe 1, or the galaxy, or the stellar system, or the planet, or the ecosystem, or the organism, or the organ, or the cell, or the molecule, or the quantum. It's completely arbitrary.

I think we can only say, rationally, not empirically, that the All is 1, and that it is the only thing of its kind, so there is no 1+1. Within the All, we may define units, but we can never define identical units, so there is no 1+1 there, either.

If you can't find the right words, you don't know what to say. Perhaps you know what you want to express; but not how you might express it. I.e., you know what you want to communicate - your experience -, but not how to model this experience, what signals to use to let others know what it is you experience. I think experiences cannot be shared; but others may imagine what you experience. In communication, it is always a faith that you understand, that you are understood. You cannot know for sure that someone else understands you exactly, you can only believe you know. In fact, you can be sure you are not understood exactly, that the other does not have the same experience you have, but a similar experience at best.

You are not empathising with that girl. You are empathising with yourself.

A hater of mankind? That is a very narrow understanding of Nietzsche. First, it is not a question of hate but of contempt. Nietzsche holds man in contempt in so far as he is content, i.e., happy to be "true to his nature". Also, Nietzsche did not think that "mankind" as a whole existed. He thought that what mattered was not the species, not the human race, but its highest exemplars - he would gladly sacrifice the greatest part of humanity for these individuals. Not that that would be the way, as "the many" constitute the soil, the dungheap from which these rare flowers may grow; but if it would further the latter, he would sacrifice the former without remorse. So Nietzsche's "hate of mankind" is really contempt of the many - the reverse side of his love of the few. The essence of his position, therefore, is love. And, as all love, it is love for his ideal, which he sees reflected in certain exceptional individuals, families, tribes, and even peoples.

The idea of definiteness implies the idea of equality: for if there could be one exact quantum, why couldn't there be two? Two equal quanta? Two identical photons, for instance? But two identical photons would have to have identical histories, i.e.: they would have to be the same. "Identity" presupposes sameness, and "something" (supposing there is such a thing as a "thing") can only be identical with itself - can only be equal to itself. Therefore, no two things can be identical; they can, at most, be similar. But similarity is, of course, a relative concept: all things are similar, in so far as they are "things", and no two things are equal, as long as they're not - the same.

"In physics, there is no broad consensus as to an exact definition of matter. Physicists generally do not use the word when precision is needed, prefering instead to speak of the more clearly defined concepts of mass, energy and particles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

Energy and mass are really the same, as energy is mass multiplied by the squared speed of light in vacuum. Particles are relatively durable relative unities, which means they are not really particles (absolutely durable absolute unities) at all. However, where Newtonian physics worked with the concept of particles, quantum physics works with the concept of quanta:

"In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) refers to an indivisible and perhaps elementary entity. For instance, a "light quantum", being a unit of light (that is, a photon)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum

This is the concept of the particle once again, as a quantum presupposes a definite quantum. Like the particle, the quantum is, to speak with Nietzsche, yet another example of "the soul superstition".

This belief, from which derives our idea of "substance", is the idea of the subject. It is the idea that "I" am something absolutely durable and indivisible, separate from my body (which, after all, is neither durable nor indivisible). Grammar - our Indo-European grammar, at any rate -, being founded on this belief, tends to strengthen this belief. But it is still a belief, and not knowledge.

You confuse being empathetic toward one's own people with being empathetic towards all human beings. And empathy toward one's kin is just an indirect form of selfishness (compare the mother's love and even sacrifice for her own children). Moreover, a society is not formed by empathy, but by the will to power. On the lowest stage, one just wants to be free, a freedman, no longer a slave. On the middle stage, one wants to have equal rights, "justice", equal power to those who rule. And only on the highest stage - and note that we all have political freedom and equal rights - only on the highest stage, among the strongest, richest, most courageous, most independent, does "love of mankind", of "the people", arise. And this is the will to power once again: the will to give direction to a large body of power, to force one's ideal upon the world. This is not the pity of the weak, who get dragged down by woozy feelings; it is the passion of the strong - such men might sacrifice large numbers of people to see their ideal through.

If I say "That glass is not empty", then what I'm really saying is: "That glass, empty, is not" - "That empty glass is not."

A, to B, pointing at a full glass: "That empty glass does not exist."
B, confused: "What empty glass!"
A, smugly: "See?"