We can help others by not helping at all (2)

Thanks for taking my debate. I'm a (former) novice looking for work on Kritiks. Answering- 1. "You suggest that nihilism is the way out of the destructive totality inherent in the will to truth, but is not nihilism a will to truth in and of itself." His purpose was not, as some have been led to believe, to deny any value or meaning to truth at all. That would itself be a circular argument — for if we believe that untruth is preferable to truth because that is a true statement, then we have necessarily used truth as the final arbiter of what we believe. No, Nietzsche's point was far more subtle and interesting than that. His target was not truth but faith, specifically the blind faith that is motivated by the "ascetic ideal." In this instance it was blind faith in truth that he was criticizing, but in other instances it was blind faith in God, in traditional Christian morality, etc.: "We "men of knowledge" have gradually come to mistrust believers of all kinds; our mistrust has gradually brought us to make inferences the reverse of those of former days: wherever the strength of a faith is very prominently displayed, we infer a certain weakness of demonstrability, even the improbability of what is believed. We, too, do not deny that faith "makes blessed": that is precisely why we deny that faith proves anything — a strong faith that makes blessed raises suspicion against that which is believed; it does not establish "truth," it establishes a certain probability — of deception. (Genealogy of Morals, 148) Thus, Nietzsche does not reject all truths, so this argument does not apply. 2. "Regarding spectacle, what is not spectacle? " I am pretty confused on what your argument is here please clarify. I think you mean 'This is not the only spectacle'. No, that doesn't sound right, please clarify this. 3. "I agree with you that one is only obligated to oneself, but I do not agree that this existential statement can be used to justify a nihilist or anti-humanist stance. You are not obligated to help your neighbor when he comes to your door asking for flour. Will you then tell him you are a nihilist and that you must then reject his request? Or perhaps you will politely ask him to cease participating in this spectacle and illusion of the good neighbor?" The 'flour' example is flawed. The argument here is that you are not OBLIGATED to help them. The will to truth and power say merely that your will to live is driven to help yourself, and not thy neighbor. Plus, flour is not suffering. 4. "As for your contempt of morality, is it the only driving force for benevolence, charity, and good will? Maybe the desire to help others comes not from that social spectacle you call morality, but rather from a more authentic experience—compassion." It also comes from the will to power. Also, as I said earlier, all other obligations are illusions. That includes compassion. Offense- A world without suffering does not exist. Has suffering been abolished yet, even through our many attempts to decive it? No. The world goes in a constant search for what is inhenetly true. Current spectacles of suffering are only causing more suffering. If we stop this, we can avoid these problems once and for all. What's worse- spending our lives helping others that doesn't help at all but hurt more- or stopping this infinetly regressive so called 'good-natured' spectacle of the world. Our morality, and will to truth and power uphold our currently oppressive nature and avoid true obligations.