Nietzsche’s theory on the illusionary truth is mind-boggling; he starts with an introduction that asks the reader to estimate their precedence. As I read through the thicket of his reasoning’s, I was swept into humility. Although truth is subjective, is there a simple premise on which to scoff at the concept of lying? Is it so undetected that there isn’t a fine line between honesty and deception? And, if lying isn’t so bad, what makes lying about the truth so bad?

“In the wake of this peace treaty, however, comes something which looks like the first step toward the acquisition at the mysterious drive for truth. For that which is to count as truth from this point onward now becomes fixed, i.e a way of designating things is invented which has the same validity and force everywhere, and the legislation of language also produces the first laws of truth, for the contrast between truth and lying comes into existence here for the first time:…”

     My interpretation is that the aftermath of building community and agreeableness necessitated the fascination and appointed decision for what truth is via language. While I would agree that objective reality is beyond our capacity, the falsehood of truth is nevertheless imperative to our essence. Even in logic, we assume “truth” until it is proven incredible or incorrect.

We value ourselves more than what we are, and rather than simply existing, our awareness gives us fault. For God’s sake, we believed in geocentricism and initially rejected the science behind heliocentrism, ridiculing Copernicus and placing Galileo on trial; we are undeniably self-centered as a species. To this point, I must agree with Nietzsche’s assertion that we are not interested in the ultimate truth or lie but instead in the harm caused by falsehood or truth for that matter. We would rather have a comfortable lie than a painful truth sometimes.

However, it appears that humankind’s truth of lies benefited us in our expansion, transitions, and prosperity. Human connection is essential to our survival. The formation of societies has made it easier to survive, and while this may be the root cause of desirable “truth,” it is also essential to its function. Society thrives only in the presence of organization, in whatever form it takes. It is an unavoidable factor; definitive truth may never be ubiquitous in reality, but it serves as a principle, not for moral refinement (although we structure it that way), but for our endurance.

And while language is a pillar that helps create this patina of truth, it is also how we share. Language is a fickle thing, and we, like Nietzsche’s bush argument, are predecessors of a shift in its matter too. I can see why he states scientist or philosopher, intellectual or illiterate, that neither shrewdness nor folly, wisdom with or without “concrete” data, can ultimately find the objective truth because our very existence is a plethora of 2d subjective experiences in time and space. And while he clearly states what truth isn’t, he barely expresses what truth is other than the denial of everything we thought was true. Sensational! The bigger question, I believe, is whether we would rather die and be sincere or thrive in fraudulence?