Nietzsche was not a systematic philosopher but rather a moralist who passionately rejected Western middle class civilization. He regarded Christian civilization as corrupt, and in place of its "slave morality" he looked to the superman, the creator of a new heroic morality that would consciously affirm life and the life values. That superman would represent the highest passion and creativity and would live at a level of experience beyond the conventional standards of good and evil. His creative "will to power" would set him off from "the herd" of inferior humanity.

In addition to the previous answer, Nietzsche believed that everyone should utilize their abilities. You could call Nietzsche something of a naturalist because he believed the exercise of your all of your abilities in whichever way you choose regaredless to conventional morality is the 'natural' use of them. Ergo, he believed in the ability of the strong to dominate the weak, as the exercise of power in such a way was deemed 'natural' by Nietzsche. He also believed that conventional morality is the creation of the weak protesting at being supressed by the strong, a morality of victimhood. He says that the weak call all of their own attributes to what we call 'good' because they believe that since they are the ones being supressed then all of their other qualities besides being victimized must be good. This is how Nietzsche began his concept of the superman and how he dismissed any morality that we see as natural, because if our basis for morality is merely learned from our forebears then it has no actual objective quality.

Nietzsche's beliefs are based on the writings of Schopenhaeur (who is most likely based upon Kant, so on, so forth, back to eastern philosophy) that the driving force of the universe is greed. Most philosophies teach us that the highest value is morality, or resisting our greed, and helping others. Nietzsche was radical in that he stood firmly against everything we've been taught and opposed morality. In short, Nietzsche taught us that 'evil' is not a bad thing. Agree or disagree, everyone should hear the other side of the story. Society places a high value upon being brave, honest, compassionate, and giving. But what do any of these values benefit the individual? Society is formed by the herd mentality, that sustaining the whole is more important than the advancement of the individual. We are quick to give to the poor and tend to the weak, but we never once reward those who are strong. In fact, if anything the strong have to defend themself against the weak, and live apologetic that we are fortunate. The herd wants the individual to help the herd, but Nietzsche teaches the individual thinker to help himself and become stronger by cowardice (the hardest of his anti-values to accept), deception, selfishness, and greed. Nietzsche states that the shepherd must be opposite the herd in order to rule, but he does not want all of the world's sheep to become shepherds. The herd is important but the purpose of the universe is to produce great men, hopefully a "superman" who's complete lack of morals will make him the supreme ruler- so high above the others that he looks upon them the way we might look upon an ape, amusing and pathetic. Had we not been so programmed to fear this "evil", Nietzsche's thinking may have a greater impact, but he was constantly fighting a losing battle to challenge Apollonian thinking with his Dionysian views. The world is swayed too far in one direction, but if only a few are open minded enough to listen to the two sides of the story, we may reach a new enlightenment. Nietzsche's beliefs were Nihilist in nature, and based on Darwinian thinking that the strongest survive (although he personally admitted that Darwinism fails in humans, who constantly save the weak and leave the strong to fend for themselves).

In my opinion which does not reach the level of those that have previously written I would like to add that Nietzsche embodies and represents the very essence of Freedom of thought and self preservation being almost equal to that of descartes and some or most of his theories.

After eating the apple, dispose of them inna compost bin? ;-)

Does everyone agree with this idea, that the strong should rule the weak. Or the rich rule the poor. Everyone has ceased to mention the fact that circumstance and or who your parents are decides whether you will be of the weak or of the strong physical or material or influential in society or otherwise. Would it not be counter productive to the majority of each community if the strong always sought to rule the weak. Granted it doesn't apply to physical ability only, strong could also mean smart or intelligent, for example a strong man may carry a sword to slice his enemy in half while the weak man creates a bow therefore becomes the strong one by intelligence and not physical ability. But nowadays a countries strength is governed by its WMD's if one country decided to rule the world purely because it had more nuclear bombs (it is stronger) would it not end up being our own demise. I disagree completely. But would be interested to see if anyone agreed with this idea?, i wonder if Nietzche himself agreed with it, its common knowledge that he did end up going insane towards the end of his life.