There is a tension, I think, between Nietzsche''s critique of other philosophers and his own philosophy: how are others "prejudiced" and he is not? I''ve thought about this a lot, and I think the point is that, whilst other philosophers are unaware of their own prejudices, Nietzsche is. So, I don''t think he would deny that his philosophy is an expression of his own will to power - in fact, that is the very shift that he wants us to recognise: we are not looking for objectivity, but rather a higher expression of who we want to be. Objectivity plays a part in this, but in a revised sense (as a guide to want we want, as opposed to some external measure of things).
This said, there is a deep philosophical problem here: doesn''t this make Nietzsche''s position immune to criticism? Anyone who argues against him simply has a different will to power. This is a problem, but it is one that Nietzsche highlights as opposed to creates. I think a lot of his criticisms of the supposed objectivity of philosophy are fascinating, and quite strong. However, if any of them are true, then it suggests that objectivity is not something that we can presume exists. Nietzsche therefore represents a challenge to all subsequent philosophers - some of which continue to deny his relevance (a minority, I think), but most of which have accepted his challenge (in different ways).
