On Truth and Lying In a Moral Sense

Nietzsche is a brilliant writer as we can see in his description of truth and deception. In his essay, Nietzsche states that words are just sounds that express metal images of stimulus we receive from the environment. Thus, language can be seen as a form of lying and deception and not a representation of the “thing-in-itself” (766-7). What Nietzsche is trying to say is that things that surround us are very different from how we perceive them. For instance, we use language to describe that a rock is heavy. But it is only how we notice it as human beings; it doesn’t describe the rock itself. In other words, language fails to represent the world as it is.

Since language fails to describe the real word, Nietzsche attempts to explain what truth is and why we thrive for it. Hence he gives us an astonishing definition of truth: “truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors, which have become worn by frequent use…” (Nietzsche 768). That is to say, what we consider truth are just concepts that we forget that we have created ourselves from how we perceive the world; they are not absolute ideals. It is like when we call a dog a mammal; science tells us dogs are mammals due to his physical characteristic, and we consider it a truth. But a dog doesn’t perceive itself as a mammal. It is just a classification system we made up ourselves and we tend to forget that as it had become so common.

Furthermore, Nietzsche explains that this happens because the so called truths linger and become stronger and solid over time. In other words, we tend to forget how concepts come to exist. Consequently, we render unconscious liars who defend the “feeling of truth” developed over centuries (Nietzsche 678).Using Nietzsche ideology, we can understand how language, more specifically English literature, can be seen as a medium that expresses endless truth. But this truths only exists in the anthropomorphic world within the human mind. I say this in reference to Terry Eagleton’s “The Rise of English.”

Nietzsche has always been one of my favorites to read, mostly because he’s brilliant and mostly because he sounds absurd until you think about his theories for too long. In this particular text, he once again forces readers to realize that the language(s) we use are incapable of grasping the world around us. He proposes that the language(s) we use is nothing more than a misleading “deception” that we take for communicating. At first, this is a little confusing but as he goes on, it gets real way too fast.

Nietzsche backs up this deep analysis of human communication by explaining that the world around us cannot be properly grasped by just simple words, and it definitely cannot be explained through one individuals’ words. The problem is is that we all as individuals see, interact and live in our own worlds. No one person’s world is like anyone else’s. We live completely different, even if we live in the same households, neighborhoods, families, etc. We may share one language, but our meanings and use of the language we know vary.

It’s kind of like this, I see a cat, but you may see the most majestical little creature that’s ever stolen your heart. This is a loose interpretation, but nonetheless, it shows two different experiences over the same subject. Not only that, but you see a cat, but what does the cat see you as? The cat doesn’t know it’s a ‘cat’.

Our inability to describe the world around us comes from our inability to understand that our words are merely metaphors for the world around us. The metaphors are our loose interpretations that are overused time and time again, until they’ve lost their meaning and substance. Especially since these words are coming from one or multiple people, all who are talking from their individual experiences. It comes from our heads, from the mental images we make up. Everything we say is based off of our own idea/perception of the world around us. What’s amazing about this concept is that Nietzsche is emphasizing our individuality and our ability to perceive our world. It opens up the mind to understanding why some people see the world one way, and why others see it the other way.

Now, since we all see the world and everything within it differently from every other person in this world, how can we find ‘truth’? Nietzsche says we can’t. There is no obtainable truth because of language. Within one specific language, there are thousands because each person sees the images we’re conveying. This also includes how we understand or explain ourselves. Nietzsche asks us to question our own consciousness, can we trust it? It effects how we see and how we explain our worlds. This is a bit of a frightening question because this can be questioned on a small scale or a very large scale. From what we’re physically able to do to how we justify our own actions, can we be trusted to properly grasp ourselves? Nietzsche says we can’t even obtain the world, much less ourselves.

After reading this theory, the only thing I would want to ask Nietzsche is if he thought he could trust his own language.

The deception of language to Nietzche is based on the elements we use to define an object. He believes and conveys metaphors, and other linguistic behavior as an illusion towards the real object of interest For one thing we use images to understand the object then we use human condition to express what the meaning and view of the object entails. We as humans believe in something and as we know the terms we believe to become experts at the subject or object. A great term he used in the writing anthropomorphic.

For Nietzsche, everything is an illusion  including truth because it is wrapped up in human intellect and the human perspective. Our understanding of the world is limited because we can only see through our human understanding. This is something I’ve come to understand; its very difficult to garner a complete view of the world since we are only human and there exists the perspectives of other living animals. Humans have coded the whole world, using language, with these illusions and created a sort of deception. I assumed that Nietzsche would recommend for us as humans to look at the world from a less anthropomorphic view and actually try to see how in what metaphors animals understand the world. This could enable us to see the world in a fuller and realer way. However, he said that would be pointless. Whatever metaphors, that eventually become truth, we or any other animal imposes on the world around us don’t and can’t represent the original essence of these things.

Nietzsche describes the rational and the intuitive man. The rational man is shackled by “an invincible inclination to allow himself to be deceived.” He preerives the world around him and his place in it through a network of concepts which have been handed down through generations of human history and which are canonized as “truth.”  Thw intuitive man Prforms “audacious feats” of smashing the framework through which the rational man deals with the world.

Nietzsche answers his own question, “What then, is truth?” with the following: “Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions (768).” The meaning of this phrase requires some unpacking. First of all, Nietzsche is not referring to a single lifetime of forgetting but rather the forgetting of multiple generations. Generation after generation have deemed an illusion to be a universal truth based on similar but not identical experiences, therefore, on non-identical experiences, which is the fundamental issue Nietzsche has with the idea of truly coming to a universal truth (767). Carl Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious is fitting to consider in light of this idea of generational forgetfulness. The idea of the collective unconscious is that all humans or, I might add, each species is born with a memory bank of his or her species’ past, which supplies the individual with a universal knowledge; however, what Jung refers to as a memory is a forgetting for Nietzsche. Nietzsche and Jung must have had different concepts of truth. For Nietzsche, we can only ever grasp a feeling, (or illusion,) of truth, which we ourselves have manifested; therefore, our truth can only ever be subjective.

“On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”

A brief moment in this piece that stood out to me as Nietzche argued about the idea that language is a lie and provides an example of a poor man saying “I am rich” (p. 766) clearly stated with the intent to introduce deception in the simplest way. However, one cannot simply tell whether or not the person is lying because of the context of the word “rich,” which can mean more things than one, something Nietzsche does not consider. Perhaps if he defined what makes something or someone rich, it would be better understood as to why the speaker of the statement would be considered a liar. Webster’s dictionary would define it as as an abundance of something, meaning Nietzche’s unstated assumption is that the poor man was on the topic of money. How else can the poor man be rich, aside from that? Culture? Love? Respect? Humility? For the above reason I would have to disagree with Nietzsche. Though lies can be created by language, the existence of it depends on our ability to describe. To me, language is a point of discovery.

As he mentioned in the literary work, language is like pocket change when it is no longer innovative and invented. However, I like to think that language is a form of art; it is something that is constantly changing according to the times we live in. We can see this in the way that spelling of words have changed over time – like “colour” to “color”. We can also see this in artistic works – novels, poetry, etc. We rely on artists to create new ways for us to imagine and so they bring to language words that would not exist. We can see things that aren’t really there through language. In this way, we able to have an image of things like mermaids and dragons. An artist’s an ability to arrange words creatively by rejecting certain literary rules and accepting unconventional rules allow others to explore the ways in which we can communicate. All the while, context and contact are always important.

I mention the above to agree that language is a simple invention. However, he forgets to mention the truths in language, the practicality and the functions are somewhat ignored. Language is not simply the way we communicate as humans. Animals have their own languages by sounds and gestures in the same ways we do. Whether it’d be through gestures, facial expressions, words, sounds, language is every way to provide a message. We humans have a strong liking for artfully creating a word to attach to a specific meaning, to refer to one specific thing. Through writing, either informative or as an art, there is a voice of personality and there is subjectivity. This can be witnessed by museum and/or exhibit display. We agree with what is written as a description of a piece and believe that it is true because museums have credibility. In sum, it is not language in general that is a lie, it is speech.

In Nietzsche’s essay, he examines the characteristics of a truth and a lie. He says “The stone is hard’, as if ‘hard’ were something known to us in some other way and not merely as an entirely subjective stimulus?”. Nietzsche tells us that humans use metaphors to put experience in a type of order in an attempt to make an overall understanding. Humans get a definition of “hard” from experiencing it in their life. We then use the word hard to describe our experience in relation to the rock. Nietzsche argues that even though we put these experiences into metaphors, it doesn’t capture each experience we have at different times.

Nietzsche also argues that a simply concept of looking at a leaf is overall grouped into one experience instead of a different one in each encounter. Every leaf isn’t the same but for us a humans to understand each other we come to the same truth that a leaf is a leaf and they don’t differ.

“There is nothing so reprehensible and unimportant in nature that it would not immediately swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff of this power of knowing.”

The gnat and humans are both within the center of the universe; however it is not the same universe. What I mean by this is, yes, they both share the same physical universe but both have their own individual mental universe. They both have this perception that the universe revolves around them solely.  (The physical universe has it own center). Nietzsche is saying that if a gnat were to gain the power of knowing then it’s universe it’s perception it’s very existence, it would become prideful. it would become hubris in it’s nature of believing that the universe does revolve around it. So, too with humans. Humans with every achievement every step forward  they want to be admired they want to continually stand at what they believe to be the center of the universe because that is what they want. They want everything to be about them, just them.

(Lost my thought….sorry)