But seriously, my main disagreement with this quote is also in that area. To quote one of his most important points, Nietzsche said:

One must stretch out one’s hands and attempt to grasp this amazing subtlety, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, for they are an interested party, even a bone of contention, and not impartial judges; not by the dead, for a different reason. For a philosopher to object [aim] to putting a value on life is an objection others make against him, a question mark concerning his wisdom, an un-wisdom. (Twilight)

So the valuation of harmless reflects more on Umberto Eco than on the apparent world. But from an artistic view, it contrasts nicely with the “terrible interpretation” that we put on it.

I suppose another way of looking at it is he claims there is no objective truth, only relative truth (masquerading as objective truth). And all relative truths are not harmful “in themselves” since they have no meaning “in themselves” and are therefore “harmless”. Very hand wavy and uses false dichotomy but I get what he is talking about, I think. But I know some people who think the view of the lack of objective truth is anything but “harmless”.

AC1