Nietzsche centers his discussion around two concepts; truth and lying. He questions what truth is and then proceeds to define it as, “illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor, coins which, having lost their stamp, are now regarded as metal and no longer as coins” (768) Nietzsche believes that language is composed of metaphors that, over time, lose their meaning as they are over used and stripped of their original purpose. Throughout the piece, it is clear to see that Nietzsche speaks from a rather pessimistic point of view, however his arguments strongly support his views. He believes that human beings search for the truth, but how do we go about doing this? Nietzsche claims that truth is only desired in a ‘limited sense’, as humans seem to “desire the pleasant, life-preserving consequences, but they are actually hostile towards truths which may be harmful and destructive” (766) Human beings are unable to accept and understand truth in its entirety. Nietzsche then questions what the “status of those conventions of language is”, as he explains the basis of language and words. A word, according to him, is a copy of a nervous stimulus in sounds. Humans are able to translate an image, smell, or sound into a metaphorical image. In doing so, objects are given ‘traits’, which guide us into understanding what something is. He states that, “the feeling that one is obliged to describe one thing as red, another as cold, and a third as dumb, prompts a moral impulse which pertains to truth…” (768) This process feeds into this concept of truth, as language between humans is what aids that understanding of truthfulness and lying. Our obligation to be truthful stems from our society, which imposes this concept on us in order to exist. Just as there is the obligation to tell the truth, there is the opposite, which is lying. One can be truthful when describing something as ‘red’ or they cannot, but either way, it is engrained in humans and both should be understood and accepted.

Another aspect of this piece that I found interesting was Neitzsche’s ability to incorporate gender into his discussion. He states, “we divide things up by gender, describing a tree as masculine and a plant as feminine—how arbitrary these translations are!” (766) He explains how humans create this idea of “gender binaries” through language. He claims that these descriptions are rather arbitrary and lack depth, as they are deemed “one-sided”. He speaks of “twisting movements” of a snake and a worm and describes just how that is not nearly enough to set the two apart and make them distinct in their own right. Nietszche then continues to say where words are concerned, the truth and adequate expression are not the main priority, otherwise there would not be so many languages. Nietzsche is able to grasp many concepts of truth and lying and intertwine them with the basic understanding of human beings and our society.

NOTE: I used a different version of the reading so the wording for the quotes may look a little different.

Link to pdf: http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_7421.pdf

Nietzsche starts his essay speaking about human beings as a distant species. He categorizes humans as “the most unfortunate, delicate, ephemeral beings(1)”. He goes on explaining how as humans we think we are more important than we really are. We feel as if the universe revolves around us. He uses an example with a gnat to prove this point. Nietzsche says that if we could communicate with a gnat we would discover that the gnat would feel that it is the center of universe as well. Why do humans think they are so important? The answer is knowledge. Knowledge can make unimportant things seem important and that’s why according to Nietzsche the proudest human of all is the philosopher. I agree with Nietzsche. Even though each organism doesn’t share the same equivalency of knowledge. If we could speak to any organism I believe that they would feel the same way as humans. As though they are more important than they really are.

One of the main points Nietzsche makes in this essay is that deception is one of the main factors of language. According to Nietzsche “truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins(4)” As humans we will not be able to get any type of truth because our language is filled with metaphors. We think we know about things themselves but we only know about the metaphors for those things. So the big question is…do we really know the truth about anything? If we have no idea about what the true meanings of things are then we absolutely know nothing. We have forgotten their true origins.

Nietzsche also points out that we ourselves have no clue what is even going on with our own bodies. Most things in nature we are not even aware of so how can we perceive ourselves. Nature keeps us in a deceptive consciousness. Humans are living in a dream world and unaware of what is happening. Nietzsche later on says “But at the same time, from boredom and necessity, man wishes to exist socially and with the herd(2)” Human beings are often influenced by many factors and one of those factors are our peers. That peers’ influence can influence people to adopt certain behaviors. As humans we have an urge to follow the crowd. An example that came to my mind of this herd like behavior would be Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers. Hitler couldn’t have killed thousands of people by himself. With the Nazi influence behind Hitler he was able to execute and kill thousands of people. Herd like behavior can also be seen in many religions.

Nietzsche’s whole argument can be very convincing. I agree that the idea of truth and lie is a very flawed concept. The idea of truth doesn’t exist in nature. So does that mean that truth doesn’t exist at all? I’m not exactly certain if Nietzsche believes in truth at all but, if that is what he is suggesting then I don’t agree. There might be truth out there and we just haven’t found it yet.

Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense is a fascinating piece on humanity. The piece begins with Nietzsche talking about how intellect is human and we humans are the possessor and progenitor of intellect. (764) We humans are curious about the universe and want to explore the secrets of it, however humans deceive each other with lies because of arrogance that comes with intellect. Nietzsche wrote, “art of dissimulation reaches its peak in humankind, where deception, flattery, lying and cheating, speaking behind the backs of others, keeping up appearances, living in borrowed finery, wearing masks, the drapery of convention, play-acting for the benefit of others and oneself-in short…”(765) The quote portrays how a person will hide their own thoughts so he/she can be accepted by others. This will benefit the person as he/she will be accepted to what other believes and the other will benefit as their version of truth gets solidified by people supporting it. Furthermore, Nietzsche also wrote that “in the state of nature he mostly used his intellect for concealment and dissimulation; however, because necessity and boredom also lead men to want to live in societies and herds, they need a peace treaty…”(765) This line is similar to a Japanese proverb where it says, “A person have three faces. The first face, you show to the world. The second face, you show to your close friends, and your family. The third face, you never show anyone. It is the truest reflection of who you are.” We have a face to show to the world and be accepted by the world. No one wants to be rejected as it hurts to feel like an outcast. We rather be tricked and deceived by lies then to find out the absolute truth which can hurt. As Nietzsche wrote, “…they do not hate deception but rather the damaging…”(765)  In a way humans are hypocrites as we shame people who lie, yet we feel comfort when lies are able to deceive and make a person feel better of themselves. This is similar to a saying where it states, “Sometimes not knowing is better than knowing.” A person can’t acknowledge what is not there therefore can only react to what he knows. If the person doesn’t know the truth that can potentially harm him/her, the person will feel much more at ease and not be troubled. It is weird as the truth can harm the person, yet if we lie and get caught it will hurt both side of the party. The liar will never be trusted and the person receiving the lie will be hurt by the truth, yet we usually use lies to get out of problems. It may be because of the chance of us being able to escape the consequences of telling the truth at the moment that we lie.

Nietzsche also talks about how we blindly follow so called “truth”. He wrote, “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force…”(767) Nietzsche believes truth is the creation of man and not a fact. We take truth and put it on a high pedestal, but we also forget truth can be lies forged by man. We may believe that the truth is the absolute truth, but it can still be a lie because it developed as a habit. So much so that we lie unconsciously.

The truth hurts and Nietzsche is able to display that in his writing. We want to believe we are perfect, but in reality we are far from it. We lie to ourselves making ourselves believe what we say is the truth. We put on faces to fit in and feel accepted, but what we believe is right is repressed to the back of our mind. I do agree with Nietzsche that truths and lies are mixed together and is hard to tell which one is which. I believe subjects that require facts should not be tampered by emotions and lie as best as possible. Even if it hurts people who sees it. There are other places where you can express your opinions such as rants and blogs.

Alexis Manzano

Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Nietzsche… On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense

Imagine our planet Earth, among the nine planets that orbit the Sun. If you zoom out far enough, you’ll notice the planets group into one galaxy. Further out, our galaxy is amongst the dozens, then hundreds of galaxies that glow against the dark sea of the Universe. Now try and imagine, where Earth is, imagine our “pale blue dot” of a planet. Two things you’ve noticed from reading this, one, that you’re reading a terrible version of the astronomer Carl Sagan’s speech, about the moral allegory of the pale blue dot; and two, the tone of my “zoom-out-then-zoom-in” template is relatively calm—or at least I try to render calmness.   Contrast this, to the shift of tonal pessimism of Nietzsche’s opening paragraph, describing our cognitive inheritance versus the indomitable Mother Nature, and you get the overtone of Part One-of-Two essays.

In essence, the author makes the point that human cognition, of his time and  historically-speaking, is to blame for all the human-centric-ness, which has plagued humans, and ironically himself, through the disillusion of “the value of existence” (p.765). Further, he explains that we can regain our “truthful” selves, as I will elaborate later, by engaging with our unique senses with the object at present, as opposed to what, according to the author, all beings either unknowingly or carelessly indifferent towards, construct—through the process of internalizing an image, followed by the psychological nervous sound, and ending through convoluted language—a distorted reality.

To start, it is important to realize how warped a vision (perspective) can become, when it views human beings, and groups all of humans—and unintentionally himself, when he mentions, “The philosopher, wants to see, on all sides, the eyes of the universe trained, as through telescopes, on his thoughts and deeds (764).”—as existentially ignorant and possibly incapable of philosophical pursuit, later asking “What do human beings really know about themselves? Are they even capable of perceiving themselves in their entirety just once…(765).” Even if you ignored the tonal quality of his rhetoric, and critically respond to what he’s theorizing—as I will in a moment—you will sense, that his main humanitarian argument, does not age well, because it lacks individual nuance.

Nietzsche, certainly a philosopher, asks two key questions, or rather progresses into it: what is truth, and to quote “…where on earth can the drive to truth possibly have come from?”(765) Truth, to paraphrase his long sentence of pg. 768, is an illusion of the object of the subject, we don’t view as an illusion anymore, say—to muse the example of the Roman Catholic’s claim upon the sky to be the kingdom of God on pg. 769—, the cumulus clouds are an illusion of Heaven; despite the grand notion of a deity to reinforce this allusion, overtime, this non-atheist objective illusion of Heaven, is truth.   He arrives to the idea, from human’s cognitive ability, to dissimilate (765), according to Webster Dictionary, “the concealment of one’s thoughts, feelings, or character.” Further, he claims that humans will engage in dissimilation to protect both (1) themselves and/or the “family, country, social group” (765; fn 3) s/he cares for; and (2) so they can understand their post-wilderness societal world at present.

According to the author, human beings enter society out of “necessity and boredom” (765), that leads a lying, selfish, “murderous” (766; fn. 4), of a being to enter a peace treaty: the society’s provision that truth is demanded from it’s citizens, for entrance through their “gates”. Therefore, as he claims, this creates a new inheritance of intuitiveness, and engages in “that mysterious drive for truth” (766). Furthermore, a human entering through the gates, will provide truth, and can only determine truth, when s/he has discovered truth, and because of the human’s natural disposition of dissimulation, the mechanism of language, that facilitates a lie, would “use the valid tokens of designation—words—to make the unreal appear to be real.” (766).

To fast-forward to my frank point, the further you read, the author proclaims why humans habitually lie, saying it’s out of conventional (768) pleasure, as humans are indifferent to “pure knowledge if it has no consequences” (766), for example—and not to offend geologist or hobbyist—like casually knowing the specific name of a rock. And through the lens of illusion, humans fabricate concepts—through image, sound, then language (767)—to create an conceptual edifice (771), as opposed to a perceiving the present through sensuous faculties (770) –say, experiencing a rose’s non-expressive (770) colour, shape, and aroma, versus conceptualizing it as a symbol of love, incidentally ejecting you from the garden of the moment, and into an intellectual sphere of further detachment from the present.

Here’s the issue, as mentioned in the opening, the author’s pessimistic tone speaks loud to the astigmatic rhetoric, that either omits—which is unlikely—, or fails to incorporate the individual, for the author casually groups all humans, into one rhetorical noun. The individual, as he admits, so long as s/he doesn’t harm (772) anyone, or, to paraphrase philosopher de Beauvoir’s existential view, so long as no one’s freedom is impacted, then let the disillusion senses, continue to perceive the unknown objects of the world, through images, sounds, language, turned into metaphor, evolving into a concept.

The problem with the author stance, is figuratively speaking his stance, as in, his privileged perspective, where he can appreciate the object in front of him, using his senses, because he was taught how to appreciate, say a large painting. Personally, before I began appreciating a painting, I used to find analogous images, say like, a Pollock looks like a stretched-out dirty apron, versus appreciating its psychological beauty of random occurrences. The crude similes would, eventually, peak my interest enough to invest more time reading/being in front of the painting; but even if I never reach that level of interest, it’s not going to harm anyone.

Ultimately, I do agree with one point, as he, in a surprisingly calm tone, ends in Part Two, synthesizing the intellectual, and intuitive pursuit, (773) so as to both balance that individual; meaning s/he is prudent and well aware of their present surrounding, and has the courage to pursue their interest of any degree.

Nietzche brings into question ideas other people don’t usually think twice about, such as “what is truth?” He points out that certain truths are fixed and that language is the conduit with which these “truths” are conveyed. He implies that “fixed truths” are a natural interaction between human beings. As in people are constantly lying to each other (whether they realize it or not). He also points out that “truth is only desired by human beings in a 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). In other words, people like to hear or believe only what they want to. This is correct because people tend to take in only what is convenient to them, if the truth being told is not relevant or convenient to them they don’t absorb it. If the truth has no impact to them then it just passes them by (goes in through one ear and leaves out the other).
Nietzche also explains how language, in particular words, are arbitrary. For example, the words “leaf” and “honest” represent certain concepts but they can’t represent every single leaf out there or every single case of honesty (767). We know for a fact there are countless different leafs and honesty can mean something different for each individual in different scenarios. This ties into epistemology and the question of “how do we know what we know?” Nietzche makes the point that concepts are metaphors which do not correspond to reality. But although metaphors are concepts invented by humans, humans forget this (the fact that they invented them) and come to consider them as “truths.” Then the relationship between these truths and reality forms, and humans get stuck believing in them (forgetting entirely that they were once simply metaphors invented by them). Essentially truth is what we want it to be. Certain truths seem more real or valid because they’ve been around for a long time, but these were once just metaphors. Interestingly, Nietzche goes on to say that language and science are what drive the “truths” people believe in. People tend to accept certain things because they are “scientific truths.” This is an interesting point to make because people do tend to believe blindly in scientific discoveries, theories etc. As if a scientist were never wrong. However, time has shown us that science can definitely be wrong, which leads one to question, if people can’t even believe in the scientific truth then what is there left to believe in?

What is truth and how can it be related to theory?

When reading Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” I found that some of what he was saying could be related back to Culler’s, “What is Theory?”. Nietzsche defines truth by saying:

“…truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour, coins which, having lost their stamp, are now regarded as metal and no longer as coins”.

After reading this line I interpreted Nietzsche’s definition of truth as truth starting out as a theory. Last class we discussed the definition of theory in relation to Culler’s “What is Theory?”. He states,

“A theory must be more than a hypothesis it can’t be obvious; it involves complex relations of a systematic kind among a number of factors; and it is not easily confirmed or disproved”.

Both a theory and truth start off very shallow in the beginning; it is how deep people are willing to interpret it that makes it into something much more. A truth is simply a theory that has been so frequently said or experienced that it becomes something you can prove or disprove. In class we discussed that being skeptical and having different modes of interpretation helps to form theories. One can use the same method when trying to convert a simple illusion or theory into concrete evidence, or truth.

An interesting and extremely true point that Nietzsche makes is that fact that us humans limit the truths that we hear, discuss, and believe. How people respond to different truths and theories says a lot about them. Us humans are very selfish and unwilling to listen to truths that can be “destructive” or have negative consequences; we only what to hear the truths that have positive and pleasing consequences. This point made me see a difference in the relationship that humans have with theory, compared to the one they have with truth. It is easier for us humans to talk about theories whether they are negative or positive because there is no wrong or right answer. Things aren’t as simple as we might think and because we constantly have to break down theories line by line or word by word it is harder to see the consequences, whether they be negative or positive, right away. Who knows what the real truth is and who knows whether a theory is plausible? In conclusion, it all depends on what you believe and how you interpret life as a whole.

Although separated by centuries, what Nietzsche attempts to explicate in “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense” can be easily summarized through Stephen Colbert’s coined term “truthiness“. Truthiness is defined by the dictionary as “the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.” Truthiness is part of the very peculiar human desire that Nietzsche describes to desperately believe in something as if it were true; despite the fact that the very notion of knowing objective truth is impossible. Human beings are limited by language and therefore, a barrage of social constructions that prevent us from connecting our individual lived experiences to ‘the thing in itself’ (766-767).

Nietzsche is most concerned about human ‘truthiness’ in his discourse surrounding language and its inherent falsehoods. Language is designed to represent things and create perpetual metaphors for everything that involves the five human senses But, in Nietzsche’s view, language will always feel just a little bit arbitrary. Herein lies an example that is hopefully relatable and a tad more tangible. There is an odd feeling one gets when a word is repeated over and over again. After a while, a word can start to sound like a strange, foreign combination of letters and syllables that is devoid of meaning. Meaning, meaning, m-e-a-n-i-n-g, meaNING? You’re probably doing it right now. That’s because words themselves are devoid of meaning, human beings are the ones that award language its ability to translate concepts. However, in the Nietzschean view, it can never truly do so because an individual human experience with something is different every single time, for every single person (767-768). Someone from the Midwest and someone from Hawaii can have very different ideas of what the word ‘water’ means to them. Compartmentalizing experiences into one catch all term is part of that human truthiness, the desire to neatly sort out what we perceive as ‘truths’ is ultimately comforting and easier.

What I found most interesting in “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense” is that Nietzsche briefly points out how “dividing things up by gender” with both people and objects is an extension of language’s arbitrariness (766). Although Nietzsche is hardly a gender studies scholar, he recognizes that the manipulation of language to create binary categories in which to organize people is not inherent or biological by any means. It is a social invention. This is one of many interesting precursors to Judith Butler’s famous revelations in “Gender Trouble” where she more thoroughly addresses gender as a social construction that has little to do with nature, and a lot more to do with patriarchal nurture.

Above all, the human desire for things to be categorized, for things to be clear, and for things to not be “harmful” wins out, and truthiness overtakes all. Yet, the curious human pull towards some semblance of truth is still felt to this day. Nietzsche claims it can perhaps be witnessed through the consumption of art, which is able to question and tug at the strings of reality. And yet, out of art, like comedy perhaps, a concept like ‘truthiness’ can emerge. Then again, I’m not really sure who’s telling the truth. 

As humans, we often pride ourselves (and our philosophers) on sophistication of thought. Nietzsche argues that we tell ourselves that we search for the truth, that honesty is what is most important. However, he says, is this really correct? Humans often favor deception over truth. Sure, we cringe when the witness in a trashy courtroom drama lies to hurt the innocent defendant, but we lie ourselves when we tell our friend with horrible taste that we like their new boots.

Nietzsche revises this belief in honesty with a qualifier; we only like the truth when it is practical to us. Truth is convenient in a courtroom. It allows the innocent to go unpunished and the guilty to suffer. However, deception, as much as society seems to abhor it, allows us to keep our friends with ugly boots. Sometimes we like deception, and sometimes we like truth. It is the circumstance that decides which we will choose. Our philosopher, however, seems to look down upon this, stating that humans are “actually hostile towards truths which may be harmful or destructive”. This seems to be an indication that this hostility towards “destructive” truth is surprising, but is it? It is true that we deceive ourselves into thinking honesty is our ultimate goal, but isn’t the occasional white lie more helpful than harmful?

What is truth, anyway, and how do we get at it? Nietzsche discusses this using the idea of concepts, which he defines as “making equivalent that which is non-equivalent”(767). His example, a leaf, shows how this is possible. There are no leaves that are exactly alike; they are a product of different DNA, they come in different shapes, colors, and sizes. However, somehow, humans have developed the idea of what a leaf is, and have classified a set of objects as leaves. Quite akin to Plato’s idea of forms, humans have set a criterion for classifying all objects, imagining that there exists an essence for leaves, trees, water, folders, and an endless list of items.

Nietzsche tears away at this idea of objective classification completely. Truth may not be what humans have fabricated. Sure, I could say the chair that I’m sitting on right now is a chair, and say that that statement is true. But the chair is only a chair because society has come up with the concept of a chair for sitting, and then manufactured and marketed it to me as a chair for sitting. Really, the statement that a chair is a chair because it’s a chair is not so much true as it is circular.

However, if humans cannot conceive of truth, who, or what, can? Nietzsche states that this can only come about by some “non-existent criterion”(770). Only a being that could consider all perspectives could judge what truth is, and humans are not capable of it. Every object or being we observe is subjected to the limited senses we can use to observe them, and it is unclear whether or not these senses are enough to communicate their essences to us.

Is this type of thinking even practical, though? At the end of the essay, Nietzsche makes a distinction between those who live by the concepts that society has constructed, and those who refuse to take those concepts as “truth”. The former are able to function well throughout daily life; they take note of patterns and have control of their environments because their minds have mastered the world and classified the objects within it. However, these people live in a prison of their own making, seeing limits and distinctions where they may not actually exist. Those who rebel against these constructions have the opposite problem. They stumble through daily life because they do “not know how to learn from experience”(773), and are unable to mentally control their environment. Every object is an endless possibility due to their refusal to conceptualize the world around them. However, they enjoy a greater intellectual experience, and have no bounds, which makes the world infinitely more colorful.

My wonder is this: Is it better to function and live in the conceptualized, classified world? Seeing as most people exist in this more limited intellectual domain, it may be more practical to accept the “truths” that society has placed upon us. We cannot escape the world we perceive, even if it lacks objectivity. Nietzsche’s contemplation of real truth is a profound and humbling idea, but I find its pragmatism questionable.

In Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense” one of the more interesting aspects I gravitate towards is his idea of humans and their relationship to vanity or rather certain “illusions and dream-images” (765). This in relation to what Nietzsche has come to define truth as, to him, has no overlap or intersection. Because humans rely so much in these vanities and illusions it bars them from looking deep enough into anything to see the real truth. With these aspects of human nature then comes the individuals need to watch out for oneself and in doing so societies are created by ways of establishing peace: “In the wake of this peace treaty, however comes something which looks like the first step toward, the acquisition of the mysterious drive for truth” (766). With this beginning of governance and establishment of peace, he goes onto explain, is when the true distinction between truth and lies comes into existence.

One of the main, and more important, points of this text is this fact that truth and lies are both manmade, especially in terms of human language. Can a lie be a lie if it is not spoken to another individual? Truths then are illusions that the human mind and overall existence has come to understand and accept as truth but in reality is just metaphor, the goal to be truthful is driven by the conformity of society to accept truth as moral and therefore as what one should aspire to follow. This leads us to Nietzsche’s idea of concepts and how concepts in relation to words is important. A great example he gives is that of a leaf, everybody knows that no leaf is exactly the same (snowflakes could work for this example as well) but when one drops these individual differences when speaking of the concept of leaves. “… by forgetting those features which differentiate one thing from another, so that the concept then gives rise to the notion that something other than leaves exist in nature…” (767). This idea in turn applies to this concept of honesty, Nietzsche explains that when one speaks of these concepts one essentially creates the meaning or “essential quality” (767) of the concept and therefore when one speaks of honesty there is no overarching definition or exact individual meaning of it, such as with leaves.

My overall understanding of this text feels a bit shaky but Nietzsche’s idea of concepts as well as his explanation of human beings as creatures that gravitate towards vanity and therefore in their way gravitate towards truth stood out to me the most. His example of the leaf being a concept but not an explanation of an individual object was enlightening to his bigger point in terms of the interaction between humans and what we call honesty.