Upon starting “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”, I was a bit skeptical of Nietzche’s take on people. He starts off by discussing how we’re insignificant based on how short of a time we’ve existed in the universe (764). He continued on almost a tangent, a rant, or almost just hating on humans, which felt a bit much. He called the creation of our existence the “most mendacious minute in the ‘history of the world’” (764). His view on people seemed quite harsh and pessimistic. He continued to say how people thought so highly of themselves: “The arrogance inherent in cognition…contains within itself the most flattering evaluation of cognition” (765).  After learning the context and time period Nietzche writes this, I can now understand where he is coming from—during a time of a lot of innovations. But when I first read this I strongly disagreed. I think people nowadays are constantly acknowledging what we don’t know and that a lot of things need to change. To change it takes an awareness from people that we are very flawed and don’t understand/know everything and as a result are ever evolving. In present day I find that people are questioning a lot of the traditional methods and ways of thinking. Many people, especially younger generation are challenging big companies, the expected 9-5 jobs, and addressing issues of climate change/ social justice/ racial issues…etc. There’s a lot of turmoil and change in the air. The fact that innovation, self awareness, and self growth is very prevalent right now–challenges Nietzche’s idea that we are arrogant. I think he owes people more credit. We’re definitely flawed and of course have times of arrogance, but if one really considers the human thinking it is very fascinating and impressive, which Nietzche is able to admit. Nietzche says that people create “infinitely complicated cathedral of concepts on moving foundations, or even, one might say, on flowing water” (769). I really liked how Nietzche phrased how people create concepts and ultimately attempt to find/create their truth. I also agree with the idea that to come to a consensus of truth and thinking is very difficult and almost can feel impossible like building on moving water. Moving water also implies that truth and concepts are in constant change because the definition of truth and our language is on a shaky foundation. Because we created our own definition of truth it can easily come toppling down if we decide it’s wrong or simply if we have a change of heart.

Saussure dives into linguistics so much so that the reader questions their presumptions about language, despite Saussure saying that language is concrete. The reader may overthink how they present themselves in everyday conversations or how they write a scholarly article. Language is extremely specific and it must be performed properly so that others can understand the point that one is making. It’s way more technical than it may seem. Saussure discusses the idea of the signifier and the signified. The average person does not think of this concept when speaking in everyday life. Saussure talks about how the signifier is the sound/image while the signified is the concept. In simpler terms, in a conversation, the signifier is what is being said while the concept is the meaning behind what is being said. Saussure states, “The two elements are intimately united, and each recalls the other…I call the combination of a concept and a sound-image a sign, but a current usage the term generally designates only a sound-image, a word…” (Saussure). The signifier and the signified cannot exist without each other. As Saussure said in the latter part of the quote, the usage of the term “sign” has changed recently. Many often think it refers to just a word. While it isn’t incorrect, Saussure made it very clear that the word “sign” is much broader than that.

In addition, Saussure discusses communication in the most general terms. He lays down a blueprint for all forms of communication, specifically verbal and written. The addresser must clearly communicate context, a message, contact, and code to an addressee. These four elements are necessary, no matter what form of communication is being considered.

Saussure emphasizes the need to study linguistics: “Why has semiology not yet been recognized as an independent science with its own object like all the other sciences? Linguists have been going around in circles: language, better than anything else, offers a basis for understanding the semiological problem; but the language must, to put it correctly, be studied in itself; heretofore language has almost always been studied in connection with something else, from other Viewpoints” (Saussure). Saussure wants linguistics to be given the same amount of attention that any other science receives. Language can be studied in a scientific way, contrary to the thought process of many. Saussure convinced me, a reader, that linguistics should be considered a science because it is way more intricate than I originally thought.

The Linguistics and Poetics definitely felt dense and confusing in the beginning. But it felt a lot more accessible and graspable when the parts of poetics and language were broken down and discussed in clear factors and their relationship to each other. Jakobson started off with the question, what makes a verbal message a work of art (1145). I felt that this was not really the main focus of argument. It didn’t seem like the idea of art and what makes art, art was discussed. The reading felt more like a discussion of how poetic function goes beyond poetry (1150) and encompasses verbal communication. Solely identifying poetic function to poetry is a very narrow minded way of seeing things. Then he further delves into the parts of language that are important to consider in our understanding of linguistics and poetics. I liked how he started off by listing and unpacking the arguments against the claim that a verbal message is a work of art. This is very gutsy approach because he isn’t shying away from opposition but rather addressing it head on. Addressing the counter argument makes for a stronger case on his end because it leaves little room for casting doubt on his argument so I’d admire the approach he takes in the paper. He acknowledges that many people approach poetry as having a purposeful structure while other forms of language are more casual (1445). I have to admit this was my own take on poetry compared to other forms of writing. Jakobson breaks down the major functions of language being: focused on the speaker, focused on the reader, the method/channel of communication, explanation of code—message behind the language, context, and contact: the way in which speaker and reader connect (1147). He also breaks down the traditional models of language: emotive—speakers attitude towards what he’s speaking about, referential, conative—which I understood to be the grammar and orientation towards the reader (1150-1151). I found it real interesting when Jakobson talked about meta language. He defined it as simply speaking about language (1150). I realized how metalanguage doesn’t always have to be something so complex and full of analysis of language and communication. Rather metalanguage can be as simple as asking what did you mean. Or as simple as a baby trying to learn the language (1150). It was funny considering how meta it was that Jakobson was discussing about metalanguage. And just taking a step back and realizing how reading/discussing/analyzing metalanguage feels like going down a rabbit hole.