So Nietzche pretty much confirms my belief that most people aren’t exactly so great.  Towards the beginning he says “What does man actually know about himself? Is he, indeed, ever able to perceive himself completely, as if laid out in a lighted display case?” It’s almost like he believes most of sort of lack self-awareness. And maybe alot of us do. After that he goes on to say “Man wishes to exist socially and with the herd”, almost like individuality doesn’t exist. I don’t exactly get his gripe with the concept of the truth or what exactly constitutes as the truth. It seems he believes we sort of lie or just conform to whatever those in our surroundings deem the truth. Which is silly to me because over the course of history people have been fighting and disagreeing over damn near everything. He says “What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding.” Well, of course there are truths that people agree upon. That isn’t inherently problematic. I kind of disagree with this idea or suggestion that to classify something as the truth must involve some level of assimilation or even sacrifice. I know what I believe to be true because maybe I’ve studied it or maybe I’m aware of it. People have a right to reach conclusions and classify something as true so long as their conclusion is reasonable. Later he says “If but for an instant he could escape from the prison walls of this faith, his “self consciousness” would be immediately destroyed. It is even a difficult thing for him to admit to himself that the insect or the bird perceives an entirely different world from the one that man does, and that the question of which of these perceptions of the world is the more correct one is quite meaningless, for this would have to have been decided previously in accordance with the criterion of the correct perception, which means, in accordance with a criterion which is not available.” I do understand that perspective has value and that obviously lived experiences plays a role. I obviously believe that an animal or say a child certainly has a different view on the world than I do.  I don’t think I really get the source of his frustration. nietzsche actually seems a bit hard to read here. It’s like he’s saying that I have my truth and you have your truth therefore there is no truth. This however is odd to me. There are most definitely falsehoods and lies out there. If people want to believe the sky isn’t blue I have no reason to argue with them. it’s like Nietzsche doesn’t believe in conclusions. I like conclusions and I like objectivity. Some ideas by some people should be dismissed. Some ideas are silly and serve no benefit. What’s wrong with saying that? Some ideas aren’t as good as others. Not because they aren’t generally accepted or because they aren’t derivative, but because they are poor and nonsensical. Why can’t this man face that? Why can’t he just relax and understand that some ideals should be put to the side? Why can’t he face that some thoughts aren’t as good or as valuable? The rest of us have already landed at these conclusions.