Nietzsche starts this piece by letting us know that humans are indeed the “most unfortunate, most delicate and most transient of beings,” which is only the beginning of his attack on mankind. (764) He continues to write how the human idea of truth is composed of arbitrary ideas created by language. Truth as we know it, according to Nietzsche, is hidden though metaphors ” which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor,” and illusions “of which we have forgotten that they are illusions.” (768). On top of this, we have put everything in categories and put labels on everything, thus taking away any magic and real truth it held. Basically, Nietzsche claims that by humans creating this type of “truth,” we have only succeeded in creating lies.

Speaking of lies, Nietzsche does write some about purposeful and clear lies that humans tell and the way in which we react to them. He writes about the manner in which humans respond to harmful lies, which of course is mistrust. Nietzsche claims this reaction is not so much from being lied to or tricked, but rather because of the harm that comes with being tricked. He then writes “Truth, too, is only desired by human beings in a similarly limited sense. They desire the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth; they are indifferent to pure knowledge if it has no consequences, but they are actually hostile towards truths which may be harmful and destructive.” (766) This reminds me of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” where he writes about coming out of the cave. because of the transition from dark to light, is hard and does cause pain, but at least you are seeing the truth. Even with that though, people do not want to leave the cave and their truths that they know. The same idea is present in some of what Nietzsche is writing. Not only does he write about humans creating false truths, but he also brings up the point that, further, our truths only speak for our species, not that of birds or insects.

Nietzsche’s whole argument about our flawed truth is very compelling, and I do agree that our language and interpretation of the world does easily lead us to believe in a made up truth, I do not believe that there is no truth, which seems to be what he is suggesting. Language, the boundaries of species, and everything else Nietzsche mentions as barriers and erasers of real truth do exist, but I do not think there can never be “a perfect match between things and their designations.” (766) He asks “Is language the full and adequate expression of all realities?” Maybe it is not, but I do not believe there is no way to find or express truth. Life cannot be that sad or worthless, can it?

How can we ever claim to know any absolute truth about things-in-themselves? Our most raw perceptions of the world are nonetheless filtered through our imperfect senses. We do not see things directly, as they truly are. Our sight is mediated through a light spectrum as it reflects off the object, is received by our retinas, and then travels through the optic nerve into the brain, creating an image. Where is “truth” in this exchange? For Nietzsche, there is none. All our cognition is inherently deceptive, as it necessarily abstracts from the thing-it-itself that it attempts to represent. Hence, “all truths are illusions which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use” (768).

Reality is messy and inconsistent. No two things are alike. Yet, as humans, we fasten a complex network of conceptions to this ever-changing milieu in an attempt to categorize and understand the world around us. In order to do so, we must ignore the infinitely diverse iterations of a thing, and instead focus only on similarity. “Every concept comes into being by making equivalent that which is non-equivalent” (767). It follows that all perceptions and conceptions are incomplete, and cannot possibly encompass all aspects of the things to which they refer. “[T]he correct perception—which would mean the full and adequate expression of an object in the subject—is something contradictory and impossible; for between two absolutely different spheres, such as subject and object are, there is no causality, no correctness, no expression, but at most an aesthetic way of relating” (770).

So what is one to do with such information? Nietzsche lays out two different types of people, “the man of reason and the man of intuition” (773). The former is one who trusts the truths that are produced by the edifice of human cognition and gains a level of stability from them. The latter forgoes such baseless truths, and liberates himself from  the inherent limitations of the edifice upon which all truth is constructed, risking the instability that entails. “[T]he one fearful of intuition, the other filled with scorn for abstraction, the latter as unreasonable as the former in unartistic” (773). It would seem that Nietzsche does not approve of either method. Perhaps there is another way?

I believe this other way can be found within Nietzsche’s writing itself, which embraces the metaphorical, contradictory nature of “truth”. Rather than using analytical arguments to support his claims, Nietzsche employs anecdotes and metaphors. In so doing, Nietzsche acknowledges the metaphorical nature of language, and does not resist it, but rather acts in accordance with it. Similarly, Nietzsche uses seemingly contradictory statements throughout his argument, as can be seen when you observe his statement that “[t]he arrogance inherent in cognition and feeling casts a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of human beings” (765), and compare it to the assertion that “one can certainly admire humanity as a mighty architectural genius who succeeds in erecting the infinitely complicated cathedral of concepts on moving foundations” (769). In the former, Nietzsche is deriding cognition for its falsity, whereas in the latter he praises its genius! How can these two viewpoints be reconciled? Well, if our logic is but another arbitrary human creation, then we need not limit our idea of “truth” to its laws. Perhaps, the illogical contradiction presented by these two statements is closer to the truth of the matter than either logical statement taken in isolation.

This brings to mind two pieces of literature that address the topic of mathematics in very different ways. The first, 1984 by George Orwell, considers the logical certainty of mathematics to be a liberating force. The stories main character, Winston, clings to pure, mathematical truth as a kind of freedom from whatever illogical insanities his dystopian society may be peddling. However wild the storm of “doublespeak” became, Winston could take solace in those few precious truths that he knew to be inviolable. “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Yet, the same type of mathematical truth is taken in a different light when one reads Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The main character of this story finds mathematical certainty to be an obstacle to the freedom of his thought. “Two times two is four—why, in my opinion, it’s sheer impudence, sirs. Two times two is four has a cocky look; it stands across your path, arms akimbo, and spits. I agree that two times two is four is an excellent thing; but if we’re going to start praising everything, then two times two is five is sometimes also a most charming little thing.” So, which is it? Is mathematical truth our liberator, or our jailer? Perhaps it can be both.

Overall, this reading was honestly depressing. As humans, we think we know things and we think we understand how the world works but we do not. Nietzsche brings up many points and concepts that I usually do not think about because, simply put, it is scary. He questions many things like whether or not humans can really know anything at all, even about humans. “What do human beings really know about themselves? Are they even capable of perceiving themselves in their entirety just once, stretched out an in an illuminated glass case?” Anything we know is through the lens of human interpretation so in reality do we know the truth about anything? How can we if we can not remove the lens of human interpretation to make our observations purely objective? Everything we know and think we know about the world is really just the human interpretation of something that is not remotely human, it is something clearly larger and tremendously more complex than we can ever fully comprehend. It can be said that this is why humans believe in things like religion. We need an order to things so that we feel safe and we need direction and guidance to feel like we are living meaningful lives. By believing in a higher power such as god, it can give a sense of security and a feeling of safety as we go through life. It is easier to go through life believing things happen because they are “meant to be” or because “god has a plan” rather than just because of chance.

Nietzsche explains another way we can realize that there is no truth is by looking at something like a bird in comparison to ourselves. If one was asked who has a better understanding of the world- a bird or human, almost everyone would probably say a human without any hesitation. However, why is that true? We understand the world from a humans perspective and to us that seems to be the truest truth but maybe it is the bird who has a better understanding of the world. They see humans for what we are on our most basic level- a species- and maybe it is foolish to believe we are anything more.

Another way Nietzsche proves that there is just no truth, is by using the example of language. Language is a series of metaphors that we use to label and categorize everything so that we have order. “What is a word? The copy of nervous stimulations in sounds.” He goes on to give the example, “The stone is hard’, as if ‘hard’ were something known to us in some other way, and not merely as an entirely subjective stimulus?” This shows that even something as crucial to human life as language, what we rely on as a truth to communicate with one another, is flawed. It is subjective- everything is. “We believe that when we speak of trees, colors, snow and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.” We create concepts and truths that make sense to us and we build on these over time. But in reality, nothing is true because what even is truth? There is a quote from the Broadway musical Wicked that states “The truth isn’t a thing of fact, or reason. It’s simply what everyone agrees on.” This quote is frighteningly accurate and in my opinion directly ties in to what Nietzsche’s whole point is: we think we know, but oh how we don’t.

There’s No Truth and I’m Scared: Nietzsche Notes On Truth and Lies

Nietzsche claims and argues on a variety of levels on the idea that deception lies within language. Pure truth is incapable of being found in our language because words we recite, read, and write are merely metaphors. A metaphor serves as a comparison or analogy that captures the essence of a thing by using another comparison to describe it. They have “no way to the original entities” rendering them only as copies of copies that rely on other essences to define them, further distorting truth. Words within our language act as images of the real thing proving that the words we choose to express ourselves are random and subjective. What we know about the “laws of nature is what we ourselves bring into them-time and space, and therefore the relationship of succession and number”.  He instills the notion that the idea of truth and language are social constructs. He ironically uses more analogies such as a bee working in it’s hive or a man in a house. It is human nature to label anthropomorphize. The consequences to this is that it strips nature of it’s mysticism/surrealism and “lead us to distrust idealism”. I’m pretty sure this means our knowledge is based in anthropomorphism or else we wouldn’t be humans without this defining feature. Though it is ruled to be destructive in it’s own right because human’s are known to label their whole world around them with metaphors which act as a jail. N questions if this human nature only limits us as a race. As an artist it makes me wonder if art is another victim of metaphor and anthropomorphism from a viewer’s perspective. N touches base on art stating that art serves no purpose to seduce our trust or beliefs. Is this liberating then?

It isn’t the duty of language to precisely frame the environment. N pokes at this idea claiming “Thus the genesis of language does not proceed logically in any case, and all the material within and with which the man of truth, the scientist, and the philosopher later work and build, if not derived from never never land, is at least not derived from the essence of things”. We look to records of mathematicians, historians, artists, and masters of their craft which have molded and shaped our world. If their teachings are false due to the deception within language being subjective and random, then is there more depth and truth in lies? I find it quite amusing yet very intriguing that (from what I understand) N is making us stop and rethink about the validation of the greatest minds of our history.
What N makes apparent is that every “concept” consists of what he calls unequal parts. Qualities such as deception and forgetfulness allow concepts to form. The progression of time allows one to forget the origin of truth within metaphors because they’re copies of analogies. Metaphors frequently used soon become devoid of meaning and lose their luster only to become the husk of a cliché. N claims this to be problematic when “the same image has been generate millions of times and has been handed down for many generations and finally appears on the same occasion every time for all man kind…the hardening and the congealing of a metaphor guarantees absolutely nothing concerning it’s necessity and exclusive justification”. We forget the words we use are copies of a copies, which in a way if you really think about it is a lazy way to assume the world and our environment.
N lastly compares the concepts of a liberated mindset of an intuitive man in relation to a rational person guided by concepts. The rational man is regarded as inartistic, less adventurous, guided by concepts, and aims to be free from pain. The intuitive man is opposing in many ways to his peer. He is considered irrational, confusing, believes illusion and beauty is fashioned deeply into life, relies on the culture and art to shape him. N concludes that both men suffer misfortunes but the Intuitive man suffers harsher conditions since he is incapable of foresight and learning from his mistakes. He is incapable of quelling himself emotionally from the inevitability of misfortune. Is this N’s way of showing no matter which man we are, deception is inevitable so the least we can do is learn to cope with it?