‘The ancient theological problem of “faith” and “knowledge”– or more clearly, of instinct and reason– in other words, the question whether regarding the valuation of things instinct deserves more authority than rationality, which wants us to evaluate and act in accordance with reasons, with a “why?”– in other words in accordance with expedience and utility– this is still the ancient moral problem…’ In an interestingly roundabout way, N- tells us to think of “faith” as “instinct” and “knowledge” as “reason”, and “reason” as “pragmatic answers to why questions”, and both as an existential “choice” about “values” which is declared itself to be a “moral” problem. In the light of this, N- writes of Socrates’ evolution as a dialectician, who began by ‘laughing at the awkward incapacity of noble Athenians who, like all noble men, were men of instinct and never could give sufficient information about the reasons of their actions…’ But in time, N- thinks, Socrates found through self-examination that he too suffered from the same difficulty, which engendered what N- calls ‘the real falseness of that great ironic…he got his conscience to be satisfied with a kind of self-trickery,’ when he chose to ‘follow the instincts but persuade reason to assist them with good reasons.’ I get the impression that perhaps, though it sounds on first reading as a condemnation, that this description by N- of Socrates, is actually high praise. I think N- wants us all to admit that this is our situation; as R.A. Wilson describes it, our ego includes a ‘thinker’ and a ‘prover’, N-‘s ‘instinct’ and ‘reason’, and the prover proves what the thinker thinks, and at bottom we are ‘morally’ compelled by ‘instinct’, and rationality is a sort of ‘self-trickery’ that we rhetorically apply to paint a veneer over what must be our ‘animal’ state of ‘instinct’ and ‘faith’.
In the next passage N- again sounds astoundingly ‘before his time’, as he derives from phenomenology, study of the history of science and the evolution of language, and his own ‘reasoning’ process many things that I believe would be supported by much of contemporary cognitive science as ‘fact’: ‘the good dumb will to “believe”, the lack of mistrust and patience…our sense learn only late, and never learn entirely, to be subtle, faithful , and cautious organs of cognition. Our eye finds it more comfortable to respond to a given stimulus by reproducing once more an image that it has produced many tiems before, instead of registering what id different and new in an impression. The latter would require more strength, more “morality”. Hearing something new is embarassing and difficut for the ear…When we hear another language we try involuntarily to form the sounds we hear into words that sound more familiar and more like home to us…Just as little as a reader today reads all of the individual words…rather he picks about five words at random out of twenty and “guesses” at the meaning…we make up the major part of the experience and can scarcely be forced not to contemplate some event as its “inventors”. All this means: basically and from time immemorial we are– accustomed to lying…one is much more of an artist than one knows.‘ For me, this is some a perfect expression of an impossible to fully appreciate lesson about what it is to be human. I think N- is right on the button here, and do not understand why so few others appear to spend much time thinking along these lines. How he discovered 100 years before cognitive and transactional psychology that we are more like the ‘artists’ of our perceptions than a homunculus in a Cartesian theater I don’t know, but I think that this is another place where N- has been spectacularly vindicated by subsequent examination of the human situation.
More of N-‘s cynicism towards the ‘common man’, ‘Inasmuch as at all times, as long as there have been human beings, there have also been herds of men…and always a great many people who obeyed…nothing has been exercised and cultivated better and longer among men so far than obedience– it may fairly be assumed that the need for it is now innate in the average man, as a kind of formal conscience that commands: “thou shalt unconditionally do something…it seizes upon things as a rude appetite…and accepts whatever is shouted into its ears by someone who issues commands– parents, teachers, laws, class prejudices, public opinions.’ More of N-‘s brand of ‘psychology’ a sort of admixture of evolutionary psychology and cultural evolution; he asks us to consider that if human beings are ‘herd animals’, which it appears we are, that it might be evolutionarily advantageous (on a group level?) to have the majority geared toward having a ‘slavish’ mentality, a desire for tyranny, to be predisposed to believe what they are told, and above all a tendency to beunconditional, or principled. How ‘principles’, moral principles, are a method of despotism of the self, ‘thou shalt’ says the ‘reasons’ to the ‘instincts’, the ‘superego’ to the ‘id’. I wonder how well Freud knew his Nietzsche…
This ‘herd instinct of obedience’ which is perhaps ‘inherited best’ may have progressed so deeply into the human psyche that there are none left who can ‘command’, which is where we get those ‘moral hypocrites’ who mix religion into their politics. Those who, ‘know no other way to protect themselves against their bad conscience than to pose as the executors of more ancient or higher commands (of ancestors, the constitution, of right, the laws, or even of God). Or they even borrow herd maxims from the herd’s way of thinking, such as “first servants of their people” or “instruments of the common weal.”‘ (pun intended I assume) It sounds as though N- wants ‘brave’ ‘honest’ leaders, willing to acknowledge that most people are herd animals who need direction, and that these leaders ought to be ‘strong’ enough to ‘command’ from their own ‘will’, not to pass the buck on to constitution, previous law, or god. However, it would become all to easy to forget, in considering N- on the ideal leader, how often he appeals to the ‘conditional’, the ‘artistic’, the inherent ‘humanity’ of even the new philosophers. It would be unwise to attribute to his politics less subtlety than to his empiricism…
Philogging 
Freud said about Nietzsche something like ‘he was the most self-transparent man who ever lived’. He was definitely a fan of Nietzsche’s work. How rigorously he had studied Nietzsche is difficult to say. He did have the advantage of reading him in German and largely being a product of the same intellectual milieu.