Nice assumption. However, I looked up the official name of the capital of Ecuador and it is not Quito. Your name is a shortened version. So, we come out with different answers. I like mine more because it is the official name.

Rich

All knowledge comes from a chain of succesion.

There is a classic statement related to this maxim:

Q. How does one know who their father is?
A. Ask your mother.

Knowledge is passed down from teacher to student.

What is being conflated in earlier posts is that we are most unforturnate to have broken homes and societies and miserly Politicians & svengali mentors and mafia business enterprises that use us as fodder.

As I have pointed out, the same thing can have several names. Thus, the name of the capital of Ecuador is Quito, even if its official name is not quite that. It has nothing to do with what name you happen to prefer. I have a nickname, and an official name. Both are my names.

Wrong. The official name is the right one. You have been quoting the wrong fact all along.

Rich

Nietzsche cannot prove his position, and he feels no need to to. He puts in question the will-to-truth. He's essentially a pragmatist. But then at other times he verges on mysticism. Still other times on being a meta-physician ( the will -to-power and the thing in itself). He conceived of truth as "a mobile army of metaphors."

Which is to say that he presented a dynamic theory of truth. (Not the first to do so, however).

I think it's wrong to study Nietzsche as someone who offers dogma. He confessed his need for many masks. And then there is this little wisecrack: "I am not a man. I am dynamite."

He also praised golden laughter. The humorless will never understand him.

This is a very long thread and I confess I did not go through all the pages.
I just focus on hue-man's post, maybe repeating what others have said (I agree with most of what Reconstructo wrote).

Before, as a foreword, something that you might find funny.
I had never heard of perspectivism until a few days ago. (No big deal, I didn't know about that as I am ignorant about countless other things).
I went to check on Wikipedia and was somehow relieved - I mean, I felt that my ignorance was partially justifiable - to see that the article on perspectivism has (to date) no version in major continental European languages such as French and German (though it is available in Spanish - which is widely spoken outside Europe - and Dutch). I came to the temporary conclusion that perspectivism is some "American way to Nietzsche". Nevertheless... why not? let's talk about perspectivism - this is an American forum, after all.



I would live with this if you remove the adjective individual.
Actually, it is even trivial that any given 2 people may have a different perspective on the same thing. But I guess that N actually did not mean to deal with this.
IMO, N believed that perspectives are rather some artifacts made out of morality or... health (as odd as it may sound, see the foreword to the 2nd edition of the Gay Science. This is his view about philosophy, and maybe philosophy may count as a kind of "perspective"). In this... perspective, individuals do not count.



This is uncharted Nietzsche to me, probably because of the wording. But assuming that you are right and also accepting that all perspectives are incorrect, I guess that N believed that some were "good perspectives", others were not.



I am not inclined to see theories collapsing whenever one believes to have discovered self-reference. (Anyway, I do not believe that it is a case of self-reference here. If I really have to, I'd rather see it as some meta-theoretical statement. But even if it was really some self-defeating self-referential proposition, I still believe that we can make some use of this statement and that the discussion can go on).
However, as said above, I think that here we are interpreting N on something he actually never said.
I would agree that N believed that all supposed knowledge was ultimately flawed (including his own). But I do not think that N would have ever valued any perspective

Would agree by replacing the word "individual" with "cultural", or "physiological" - or even "inherited". Else, as you put it, this would lead to some foundation of relativism that it is really not what N aims to do.

mea culpa.
N wants to attack all knowledge that presents itself as "objective", not for its actual content, which can be useful (to life), but because of its claim to be the valid and unquestionable attitude to knowledge (and, in this respect, it is only a lie).

Clearly N does not think that this objective knowledge is what it is meant to be by its followers, but this is not the cause of his argument. The point is, rather, that this knowledge is harmful... (cannot come up with a better word for now, consider harmful as an understatement).
According to N, the supposed "objectivity" is a "disease", it's a display of a corrupted and sick (read "against life") will to power, the will to truth (for instance, see GS book V, 344).

If you believe that, and if science is only some perspective