“On Truth and Lying in a Nonmoral Sense” by Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche delved into an analysis of what “truth” means throughout the reading and its intermingling with “lying”. The analysis that  “truth” are “illusions of which we have established, canonical, and binding; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions…” (768) is a theory that I have come upon before. I deeply believe that we should question the social systems that we have been built upon and that through hegemony and government are enforced. At the same time I don’t agree that they are “illusions”, because these systems that have become “truths” hold material impact on our everyday life. I feel that this “truth” is not included in Nietzsche article.  

Nietzsche also goes further into this analysis as he delves into an existential crisis by asking the question “what do human beings really know about themselves?”(765) This questions to me seems to address two points. One, is that though in our world we are bombarded with messages about life purposes, desires… etc, we are expected to know enough about ourselves. Thus this question- is a change- as it leaves us open to growth- we are on our way to learning more about ourselves if we make more space for even the unknown. That’s where I think the second point I see come form which is- this question of how we view ourselves in the face of this world- that we are also labeling with our own “truths”.

Nietzsche delves into this idea of perception throughout his article as well. Nietzsche says that nature does not conform to this laws. Nature doesn’t see the “objective truths” that mankind has pushed. Nietzsche has this example– where he compares the different perception of a bird and human being. The idea that we should take into account other perceptions of a certain view point I believe is important. It is a way that we can challenge our own “truths” because we will see that it will not apply to everyone.  I think this viewpoint that Nietzsche provides would give people more room to really look at their perspective- what are they missing out- what “truths are holding them back”… etc.

Throughout reading this piece by Nietzsche I thought about if there were any “universal truths” that are hold by human beings and two- legged and multi legged creatures and other beings. I don’t believe there are any “universal truths” that are hold by everyone- at a surface level- but I believe deep down into our souls we do have more common “universal truths”. I also believe it’s okay that not everyone has to have the same “universal truth” however I do believe in community- and that there are people who have the same viewpoints as me and that will support me.

When a German guy with a crazy mustache opens his mind, its crazy what discoveries he can make about the reality of this world.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche thought deeply on the nature of what is true and what is false. He thought deeply on the nature of language. He comes to a conclusion that what we think to be true is actually false and that language is actually dead.

Nietzsche identifies the “truth”, saying, “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snow, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves,” I believe he is trying to remind us of our own personalities as human beings, saying that we are very arrogant. That we proudly make claims to show that we have some form of knowledge. He recognizes that the possession or the lack of knowledge is the key determining factor that distinguishes one human being from another and that when we try to boast of how powerful we are, we always do so by showing how much we know. However, in the same exact sentence, he launches an attack on this “truth”, saying that, “and yet we only possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.” By saying this, I feel that he is blatantly saying that humans talk a big game, but really have no idea what they’re talking about. Since the things we say are only metaphors and don’t actually correspond to what something actually is, he’s implying that we don’t have any idea of what things actually are, otherwise why wouldn’t we address them as they actually were?  (Nietzsche 767)

Clearly, there is much truth to what Nietzsche is saying about our modern idea of what “truth” is. Humans don’t actually identify an existence in its infinite status. Humans identify an existence as its present, very finite status, more specifically, what they’re looking at, right then and there, at that exact moment. Moreover, a person will give a name to that something and then no more than a day later this same person may give that same thing a completely different name. Even moreover that, the initial name that they gave to the existence, they will give to another existent. Our idea of what we think is truth is always changing due to our own arbitrary borders. We don’t stop to appreciate an existence for its infinite meaning, a meaning that will never fall subject to modification or manipulation by human beings.

Nietzsche identifies “language” as metaphors when he says, “The stimulation of a nerve is first translated into an image: first metaphor! The image is then imitated by a sound: second metaphor!” He sets this as the basis of all language. He describes to us that when we see something, our brain comes up with an idea of what it is, an image. This image is followed up by an arbitrary sound so that it can be identified. I feel that the main point is that the sound is arbitrary. It can change if it needs to be changed and because of this flexibility, the sound loses its romantic bond to the image. The image, regardless of the sound that we give to it, has its own natural sound, which is only recognized by the one who created it. The image is in love with its natural sound, which is undefinable by us. Due to our inability to understand what the image’s true natural sound really is, we can never do it any justice because we can never give it any significant relationship to its sound. (Nietzsche 767)

Nietzsche says that due to our extensive use and categorization of these languages, that it has become like a columbarium. He says, “the great edifice of concepts exhibits the rigid regularity of a Roman columbarium,” and that these concepts are “the left-over residue of metaphors,” Each of these sounds that we subjectively assign to the images that we see are, to us, concepts. When we find a concept which is better than an existing one, we replace it and over time we as humans have replaced many concepts with ones that we think are better, when in reality, we are launching ourselves further away from the original sounds of the images that we once had, from the original metaphor that gave to an image to relate it to a sound. I think what he’s saying is that due to our indecisiveness, we have mangled the language so much so that it became a hollow, rigid, soulless, shell of what it once use to be. (Nietzsche 768)

Although I understand and agree with what he is saying about our idea of “language”, I strongly feel that this is necessary for our existence to cooperate with itself. We formulate the concepts that form a language for our own convenience because of our very specific lack of ability to identify the eternal state of a creation. We must always speak with ourselves in a way that doesn’t cause any problems within our intellectual homes. If we have to toss out a concept because there’s a better one, it would be something which is easy to do and easy to spread. It is infinitely more difficult if not impossible for us to try and dissect a creation in order to find its true sound. I feel that it was just never meant to be that way, otherwise all of intelligence that humankind possess would have already come together and come up with a solution. I think that there is no cure for this because its not a disease, its merely a necessary wound, keeping in mind that not all wounds heal.