Whether in college or in high school everyone has experienced having to read and analyze a poem, which can possibly be considered as a dreadful task due to the “complicated” and “confusing” phrases used. But what if someone told you that our everyday use of language and linguistics is our own version of poems. As Roman Jakobson explains in his piece “Linguistics and Poetics”, poetics can be considered a foundation for linguistics as the structure for a poem is similar to the structure in which we communicate.

Poetics is often considered to be too complex to read and even to write. Jakobson offers a different look into this and explains how similar the process of writing a poem is to the process of writing a message to someone, even if we do not realize it. Jakobson states:

The addresser sends a message to the addressee. To be operative the message requires a context referred to (the “referent” in another, somewhat ambiguous, nomenclature), graspable by the addressee, and either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a code fully, or at least partially, common to the addresser and addressee (or in other words, to the encoder and decoder of the message); and, finally, a contact, a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication (Jakobson 1069).

When doing something so simple such as sending a message it requires one to think about what language we should use, how the addressee will interpret it, and what exactly we will say to them. This process and system of communicating with others seems to be non existent to us now only because of how natural and often we do it. Understanding and creating poetics requires just the same process, but we avoid it due to it being so abnormal for us. If it had been taught and explained to us as children it would not be considered to be so “non-casual”.

Jakobson is attempting to separate poetics from poetry and explain how it takes place in every mode of speech. Emotive, referential, poetic, phatic, metalingual, and conative all require a process to understand and do. A process that may only be associated with poetics. Where you must consider what you are saying, what words you will use for this form of speech, and finally consider the addressee. Each form of speech requires a part of poetics where you must evaluate every aspect before saying it out loud. For instance, when using the emotive form of speech one must pick out their words carefully in order to make the other feel a certain way. Poetics being a strong part of linguistics automatically makes it part of each form of speech.

As Nietzsche’s beliefs and ideas explained previously, we as a society accept everything that is told to us, we do not question why certain things are named as so or why 1 plus 1 equals 2. Society teaches us to do things without anyone realizing, which makes it impossible to create your own ideas without being influenced. In this case poetry in society is portrayed to be this intricate piece of writing filled with metaphors and similes. Poetry is poetry because that is what we are told. We do not question or consider more of what there is in communicating with others or the process of it. Leading us to miss out on the big portion of poetics there is in our daily communication with others.

I think Roman Jacobson is a bit puzzled here. It seems like he’s trying to address whether poetics and linguistics have a connection. Or whether it seems poetics is a tenet of linguistics or not. Towards the beginning he says “Since linguistics is the global science of verbal structure,poetics may be regarded as an integral part of linguistics.” I think since poetry is “verbal art” as he says maybe they’re not exactly the same. Linguistics is the scientific study of language while poetry or poetics if I understand it right is simply a form of expression. Not that language isn’t expression but I don’t exactly perceive linguistics as an art form.  He goes on to say that poetics is not confined to verbal art. He claims that forms of poetry or stories can be transferred into music or say ballet. He doesn’t seem to have the same feeling about linguistics however. Jacobson confuses me a bit. I wonder if my interpretation is off or if I’m not getting him. Later on he gets on what we call or should call a “Literary critic”. He says “Why is a clear-cut discrimination made between pure and applied linguistics or between phonetics and orthepy, but not between literary studies and criticism?” I think maybe he wants them to be seen as one and the same but academia may be getting in the way of that. Maybe he seems to think that linguistics and poetics should be more seen as siblings rather than neighbors. He says language must be investigated in all of it’s forms and functions. He seems to think that the position of poetics has to be accurately placed among other types of language. It also seems like he think some are essentially reducing language or cutting it in half. He says ” No doubt,for any speech community,for any speaker,there exists a unity of language,but this over-all code represents a system of inter-connected subcodes; every language encompasses several concurrent patterns, each characterized by different functions.” Later on he talks about the addresser and the addressee.  Which to me tackles the bridge between the speaker and the listener. I believe he sees language more as a tool. He says how simple statements like “Are you listening?” can serve to essentially hook the other person in. He says these comments essentially are supposed to either bring attention to something or prolong it. He says that the lingustic scrutiny of poetry should not limit or confine itself within the function of poetics. 

What is the weight of a breath ?If you ask someone you would come across two different answers . Some people would say nothing . I mean air is weightless . Others would say it’s invaluable . Those people aren’t technically wrong but they aren’t talking about the weight of a breath but the value of living .But who’s wrong comes down to who’s asking and they’re subjective opinion . A philosopher or a physicist ? And about there being two different answers I lied . I could only think of two answers. There’s probably more wrong than right but after all that’s up to you ,or me ,or both ,or either ,or someone ,or no one. In Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying Nietzsche says he first laws of truth. “For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time.. The liar .. uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real. .. He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. “ explaining that truths and lies are closer than we think and is apart of the game we humans play for perceived superiority over each other in a battle of intellect and the very idea of right and wrong are a figment of our imagination
Additionally Nietzsche also says “The pride connected with knowing and sensing lies like a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, thus deceiving them concerning the value of existence. For this pride contains within itself the most flattering estimation of the value of knowing.” . In this quote he draws humankind as a ignorant creature that names to give reason to live through lies again mention blur between truth and lies as a system of oppression in which we shackle ourselves and gain superiority over others giving us a reason to live and without it we would have no desire to live or value life as much as we do. However I disagree with this notion as knowledge existing in the first place is the reason we place value on things and creates a as we would never think to place value in existence or anything for that matter without knowledge . Also us being living beings our existence inherently has value to us regardless of if we place a certain value and or priority to it. We don’t have to think about doing something as simple as breathing; it’s done without much thought. The toddler or newborn instinctively place value in staying alive in breathing despite not knowing yet the meaning of death and therefore the value of life. Therefore one could argue the will to live being tied with a self importance from the hubris we gain through the construct of intellect can be proven false dismantling Nietzsche’s argument of language and fact or truth being an illusion rather than a natural evolution of intellect that mankind was gifted. All in all we in both lies and truth fill the content of what and how we live . But as living being the choice and desire to live was given to us the minute we were born and transcend beyond the grand scheme of things even what we think we know.

Language is how humans are able to communicate with one another. Since everyone has the capability of understanding and speaking a language, some scientists don’t recognize the value of studying semiology (the study of signs and their interpretation which is a core aspect of language). Language is based upon the fluid relationship between the signifier and the signified. People can view a tree with wilted leaves and discuss their feelings towards it because language has created a space to share ideas. Scientists tend to forget that language is not “a name-giving system” (Saussure 851). The true nature of language can reveal a tremendous mystery, the tendencies of all individuals. Ferdinand De Saussure wants to deconstruct the notion, “language is a simple naming process”, and appreciate the complexities of language to showcase human nature as erratic. 

Psychologists and philosophers have taken steps to understanding how the human brain operates and actions executed by people, respectively; however, certain components of language can demonstrate the convoluted nature of humans. First off, language and individuals have an extensive connection because language follows an individual from the moment that they are born to their last moment of life. As an individual develops and experiences different points of their lives, their language is also going to evolve. A fifth grader’s language is not the same as a college professor’s language and it is a result of their different points in life. A fifth grader has not been exposed to a wide range of vocabulary, they have not endured high school and college level courses, and they have not interacted with as many people in comparison to a college professor. New words and phrases are picked up as a person enters different stages of their lives. Also, it is important to acknowledge that language is not completely arbitrary. Due to different circumstances that an individual can encounter, it can be difficult to pinpoint how and why a person’s language has changed. However, every language has a set of grammar rules that are evident in a person’s speech. A fifth grader and a college professor both deliver sentences, questions, and different kinds of phrases to speak with other people. In addition, they are both able to view an image and draw their own conclusions based upon it. Yes, their use of language and vocabulary could be different, but there are grammar rules set in place to guide conversations. Regardless if an individual has been studying language for the past decade or if an individual has just graduated elementary school, they both use language to communicate their ideas and understand the world through signifers and the signified. 

Now stepping away from the individual, the characteristics of a language came to be because of different communities. Language is a combination of arbitrariness and structure. The arbitrariness stems from the relationship between words and concepts. The relation between the signifier (word or sound-image) and the signified (concept) is random. For example, there is no sturdy reasoning as to why the word “horse” is related to the concept of a horse. Furthermore, “the signs used in writing are arbitrary; there is no connection, for example, between the letter t and the sound that it designates” (Saussure 861). Based upon these examples, it is evident that language is based upon differences. Since, “words do not stand for preexisting concepts, there are differences in meaning from one language to the next” (Saussure 859). Different communities come together to create different social contracts that bring meaning to a particular image. Also, different languages have different grammar rules that are set in place. Though language is mutable by nature, the meaning of a word can not change overnight. People have to come together, evaluate how and why the word is changing, see how the change is applied and seen in their own fluid lives, and socially approve the change. The social contract different communities have created for words are proof of the structure that is consistent through language. People are heavily involved in their languages. 

A concrete component of all humans is their use of language, regardless of the changes that occur in their lives. The innate relationship between language and humans allows for linguistics to understand how the complexities in language are mirrored in the complexities that surround a human. Language is organic, it is always evolving because humans are always evolving.  Language demonstrates how no one can accurately predict an individual’s thoughts and actions. An individual’s words can reveal a person’s thoughts and motive behind their actions. Further, writing (a tangible expression) helps linguists understand complicated humans. I say complicated because even with all of those resources, there is a possibility that someone could be lying. So why try to dissect the actions of a human through language? Because it is fascinating how a human is able to be concrete, yet fluid at the same time. 

When it comes to Saussure, his ideas on semiotics and the general linguistics, he has many abstract ideas. However, unlike Nietzsche, he takes his ideas and elaborates on it more. While Nietzsche describes an abstract idea on language and entertains the idea that language is a lie and deception that people collectively agree to be true, Saussure takes his idea and elaborates on it by breaking it down and explaining his ideas as opposed to Nietzsches venting. When it comes to Saussure’s beliefs in general linguistics, object and subject are fundamentally separate. Linguistic Language fits into a broader subject known as Semiotics/Semiology. Examples of semiotics are fashion, coding, music, dance, math. However, the most important of these is linguistics. In linguistics subtle change can have major complications. Language is the most arbitrary because it is often a removed version from the signs and where they are located. Language varies across different cultures and locations. Anything you say can describe anything in the world because language as arbitrary. In Saussure’s “Course in General Linguistics (850-66),” he brings up a contrast between “Langue vs Parole”, Langue is compared to a chessboard and its rules. Langue is the grammar and the visual structure of rules that create “Parole.” What does Grammar and Rules have in common? Grammar is absent and rules are invisible. They aren’t a tangible thing that people can touch and feel. Grammar, Langue, is just there. Its Immaterial, Abstract, Social/Collective/Sparse. Parole refers to the specific moves and these moves consist of utterances which form words which create sound-image. While Langue is Absent and invisible, Parole is Present and Material. It is Individual and free within its own limits of Langue. Words are unlimited. Words can be created as long as people collectively agree on that word being part of language. The system of signs (language) is a construct where we agree to these signs where we agree to them as fact and true. Its nice to see here that Saussure takes Nietzsches idea and elaborates on this by breaking it down and understanding the why. Another idea that Saussure brings up is the contrast between the Signifier vs the Signified. They both revolve around the “sign” but the signifier refers to the sound-image as it relates to the signified concept. When it comes to the signified vs the signifier, the both have to mutually create each other as their cannot be one without the other. In language there are only differences without positive terms.

In the reading, On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense by Nietzsche he elucidates the idea that everyone is an intellect through their own lens, guided by their own intuitions. So when one is faced with either their own truths or lies, they’ll think it’s correct simply because that is just how they perceive and understand it. Deceptions are more common than we’d think and normally, telling the truth is more deemed as moral; but one’s truth is not the truth of another.
“As a means for the preservation of the individual, the intellect shows its greatest strengths in dissimulation. Since this is the means to preserve those weaker, less robust individuals…” (765). Nietzsche implies that everyone has their own little ambience, their own world of what they believe is the truth and the lie and when they show others their own self, it’s almost like they show a piece of themselves in which they aren’t being completely honest with themselves.

Nietzsche mentions how metaphors are the type of language that humankind can communicate and perceive each other and perceive things. So if an individual was to say a remark, they internalize that statement and push it onto the world so that it can become true. “We divide things up by gender, describing a tree as masculine and a plant as feminine  – how arbitrary these translations are!” (766). He discussed how there are borders put into place and become a concern for what is true or not. He states that truth is merely just a “mobile army of metaphors , metonymies, anthropomorphisms” that have been subjected in rhetorical language; that truths are illusions that are not necessarily illusions to people. So while one person may believe one thing, the other thinks of it differently.

It is closely related to subliminal perception, where people will disguise and construct truths and lies to make it so that people wouldn’t question or be aware of their persona/cognition. “By these standards the human being is an architectural genius who is far more superior to the bee; the latter builds with wax which she gathers from nature, whereas the human being builds with the far more delicate material of concepts which he must first manufacture from himself” (769). For example, hypothetically speaking, if there was a person who states that she is the best at the game chess, then she herself will believe it and others can believe it as well, but it comes down to how people perceive her with what information she puts out into the world. One can think she’s the greatest player while another peer can think she’s not the best. Nietzsche describes how human beings themselves have an urge to let themselves be deceived in the way they want, even if they aren’t true.

This is how everyone simply has their own ambience of belief of truth and lies; because as “just as the other did in the midst of happiness: he does not wear a twitching, mobile, human face, but rather a mask” (774). Regardless if a person is telling the truth, there are so many points of views but the most primary thing is how oneself can interpret and perceive themselves and others. 

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?

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.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense” unpacks the nature behind a lie, among other interesting and important things. One little lie can make one come off as a completely different person. Why is this? Nietzsche gives an adequate example and explanation, “The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real. He says, for example, ‘I am rich,’ when the proper designation for his condition would be ‘poor.’ He misuses fixed conventions by means of arbitrary substitutions or even reversals of names. If he does this in a selfish and moreover harmful manner, society will cease to trust him and will thereby exclude him. What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception” (Nietzsche 766). When someone is caught in pretty major lie like the one described, they were pretending to be something that they are not. In this case, this person is pretending to be the total opposite of what they actually are. Of course, the person on the receiving end of the lie will feel betrayed since people tend to want to believe what they are told, but at the end of the day, this person was just deceived. Maybe if this lie was more of a white lie, then the reaction would be less dramatic. Possibly, the person being deceived may just brush it off, because everyone tells a white lie every now and then. Perhaps, they might still take great offense to it, but the bottom line is that when it comes to major lies like the one Nietzsche mentions, it is hard to recover on both ends. It is hard for the receiver to find trust in that person again and it is hard for the liar to deal with the consequences of their own actions. On this note, the liar might feel outcasted after the truth is unveiled. With this example, if someone is caught lying about their social status, they will not only be shunned by society, but they also might face legal repercussions if they tried to lie to an authoritative figure. This piece by Nietzsche makes the reader grapple with the art of lying, so much so that the reader may never tell another lie…ever.