I need help understanding the last two paragraphs of the 25th section, third essay, which is provided below from the free link: http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/360/genealogy3.htm
Similarly who could now hold anything against the agnostics, if they, as admirers of what is inherently unknown and secret, worship the question mark itself as their God? (Xaver Doudan once spoke of the ravages brought on by “l’habitude d’admirer l’inintelligible au lieu de rester tout simplement dans l’inconnu” [the habit of admiring the unintelligible instead of simply staying in the unknown]; he claimed that the ancients had not done this).* If everything human beings “know” does not satisfy their wishes and, instead, contradicts them and makes them shudder, what a divine excuse to be allowed to seek the blame for this not in “wishes” but in “knowledge”! . . . “There is no knowledge. Consequently—there is a God”—what a new elegantia syllogismi [syllogistic excellence]! What a triumph of the ascetic ideal!
Is he saying here that these agnostics admire the unintelligible? Who are the unintelligible he's taking about? Also, is he saying that human beings would rather blame knowing than their wishes/desires when they realize their knowledge indicates their wishes can't be fulfilled? If so, how is this against the ascetic ideal when the ascetic ideal is one to repress wishes, more than knowledge?