Nietzsche believes that deception is at the heart of language and cognition because people use language to conceal and mask the truth in an attempt to help amplify the basic human instinct of belonging. When it comes to the relationship between a mental picture of an object, the word, and the actual object, Nietzsche believes that the “thing in itself (which is precisely what the pure truth, apart from any of its consequences, would be)” is simply something that cannot be understood to the creator of language and is only made in relation to the things humans know. We can only compare these objects to thing that we know of. On page 768, Nietzsche asks himself, “What, then, is truth?” He later answers this by saying that truth is a combination of human interaction that has been changed altered, defined, moved which over time has been heavily intwined into how humans interact. The truth is an illusion of metaphors and other rhetorical devices that has lost meaning and effectiveness over time. Nietzsche later states that humans are “architectural geniuses.” This is due to the fact that humans can conceptualize the things they do not know wether it be a rock or a leaf or another object or idea into something that is easier to understand. This is due in part to the human minds ability to associate language and words that are understood to said object and formulate an idea based off of other concepts and ideas that give us a better understanding. This is despite (as Nietzsche stated earlier in his work) Nietzsches view that language is only a mask and that language is created to “give meaning” to object but in fact it only further entangles them. This implies that language does not build anything particularly new or true but rather it takes an object, connects it to a word or sound and categorizes it into something that humans grow to understand as that object and masks the true meaning of the object they see. Two types of humanities that Nietzsche got onto describe later in the essay is the intuitive mind and the logical mind. The intuitive mind and the logical mind are both tools for building  reality with “minimal dissimilation and maximal truthfulness.” However, something that’s “truth” is only what people agree on the truth to be. Nietzsche style questions the readers thought process and requires his readers to critically examine the way they view language as a construct that allows for true meaning to be lost in deception the of truth. He manages to describe interesting ideas that are broad and expansive yet focuses his thoughts in a manner that makes more sense the more the reader analyzes Nietzsche’s meaning.

As kids when growing up we are often told to always tell the truth, and are explained why dishonesty is wrong. As we get older these beliefs and morals stick with us forever and are almost never questioned. German philosopher Frederich Nietzsche offers a different perspective into truth and dishonesty in his essay “On Truth and Lie in a Non-Moral Sense” where he explains what being honest and dishonest may really be for humans. Nietzsche offers the idea that as a humanity we follow whatever is seen to be “acceptable”, such as being honest, and while most follow along there are others who create this new side of humanity.

Nietzsche argued that telling the truth is something humanity is taught to do from the very beginning, something that is what we all follow due to society. Nietzsche seems to go beyond honesty and tries to use it as a way to explain how humanity conforms to whatever is seen as acceptable in society. For instance, he describes how being truthful is a pact that we all make as humans yet it is alright to not be completely truthful in other cases. Nietzsche states:

But man has an invincible inclination to allow himself to be deceived and is, as it were, enchanted with happiness when the rhapsodist tells him epic fables as if they were true, or when the actor in the theater acts more royally than any real king. So long as it is able to deceive without injuring, that master of deception, the intellect, is free; it is released from its former slavery and celebrates it Saturnalia (Nietzsche 7).

Society is told that one must always tell the truth and if one does otherwise they will be perceived in a negative way, but yet there are exceptions that we must allow. In this case made up fairytales, fables, or other stories are allowed to lie to us and create false realities because they are not necessarily “injuring” humans. How Nietzsche seems to want to explain this is by saying that overall “truths”, “lies”, and “injuring” are concepts humanity has made up and because no one really questions it it continues to happen. That does not mean that all humans conform to these ideas as he goes on to explain.

Near the end of his essay Nietzsche divides humanity up into two different groups because of this concept of “truth” and “lies”. He believes that there is the group of humanity that does not question society but follows along and does as told, as like in a simulation. While the other group of humanity eventually breaks out of these norms and creates their own concepts and beliefs where they can govern themselves. Those who continue inside of these societal norms forever, when falling, will struggle much harder than those who break out of the norms and learn how to think for themselves where they will grow and become even stronger. Nietzsche states:

To be sure, he suffers more intensely, when he suffers; he even suffers more frequently, since he does not understand how to learn from experience and keeps falling over and over again into the same ditch. He is then just as irrational in sorrow as he is in happiness: he cries aloud and will not be consoled. How differently the stoical man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfortunes! (Nietzsche 8).

Nietzsche while referring to truths and lies throughout his essay seems to be rather focusing on societal norms as a whole. He attempts to give examples with the truth and lie concepts, yet gives readers more to wonder about. What other concepts have been created in society yet never question?

Nietzsche’s theory on truth and lies tackles the tendencies of humans. The opening paragraphs of “On Truth and Lying in a Nonmoral Sense”, discuss an alternate universe where clever animals have invented cognition, however, their achievements were not able to be celebrated because of an explosion that literally and metaphorically obliterated this world. Now this information is far-fetched, and it already leaves the reader (including myself) in a state of confusion. I immediately asked myself, what do brilliant animals in a distant land have to do with the nature of truth and lies? As I patiently navigated through the rest of Nietzsche’s ideas, it became apparent that Nietzsche possibly started off his writing with a bizarre scenario to demonstrate the stubbornness that is found in an individual’s ideas. After unpacking the events that occurred on the strange planet, Nietzsche writes, “so the proudest man of all, the philosopher, wants to see, on all sides, the eyes of the universe trained, as through telescopes, on his thoughts and deeds.” (764). Even though the storyline Nietzsche used is extreme, it captures how people think of ideas in their head that are true, yet the public believes that their idea is insane… a lie. For example, there was a time where European scholars believed that the Earth was flat. Since this was an accepted idea amongst most European scholars, everyone else who argued that the Earth is a sphere were seen as liars. Whenever individuals attempted to explain why the Earth is a sphere, the other European scholars were left bewildered. Similar to how I dismissed the idea of an alternate universe that was destroyed, European scholars dismissed anyone who tried to invalidate their belief.

Today, most individuals understand the Earth is not flat, however, the bigger picture is that Nietzsche is trying to showcase how ideas are not certain because of human pride. Since everyone wants their ideas to be accepted and are not opened to alternate conclusions that are based off a concept, it becomes difficult to distinguish between a truth and a lie. Therefore, Nietzsche claims that “truths are illusions that we have forgotten are illusions.” (768). Furthermore, Nietzsche mentions “fog that surrounds human eyes,” (765) and that fog or pride distorts truth and creates a world consumed by false realities.

Let’s step away from historical European scholars arguing over the Earth and consider how the truth is almost impossible to find nowadays because of social media. Social media has created an environment where it is extremely easy to compare yourself to people. Yet, it is not a fair comparison because oftentimes people will compare their worse version of themselves with a “perfect” image that is seen online. An example of this would be if someone posts on their social media a picture of their grades and it is all A’s. Another person who did not get all A’s and views this post will automatically believe that they are dumb or everyone else around them is achieving their academic dream while they are struggling. The person who did not get all A’s fails to realize that the other individual had nights where they also felt dumb, or they failed an assignment in the beginning of the semester. Life is not perfect, and everyone goes through their own challenges, yet social media provides a space where an individual is able to craft their “flawless life”. People do not tend to post negative content related to their lives because they want to keep a certain facade. However, this distorts the truth about their lives because a life consists of ups and downs. Nietzsche would view social media as an affirmation for his belief that pride creates lies which means that the truth can never exist. Individuals tend to create false realities and become consumed in them to hide from people who challenge their ideas.

Mankind throughout the years has developed a sense of what “Good” and “Evil” should be defined as. For all we know, Good could mean performing positive changes to benefit oneself or others. While Bad could mean inflicting negative effects towards someone or something. As time moves forward, people have this ability to change the way society works, in a meaningful way that can alter the way we view history. Do sense and will have a connection with these words? How can one truly define Good and Evil? Was it meant to be questioned and have a never-ending answer?

Maybe in a couple of centuries into the future, what we view as “normal” in today’s world could be viewed as a terrible custom that our descendants will interpret as. Presented by the text, it mentions “The Latin malus may designate the common man as the pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy who was distinguished most obviously from the blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race by his color” (30). Previously, many claimed that the Aryan race is the most superior out of all and should rule everyone else who is not/appears like them. During this time, this was a positive for the Aryans while being different (such as having dark hair) would mean that you’re evil or represent bad against the good (in this case, the Aryans).

This ties in strongly with some beliefs with religions. Believers and followers will be following the directions/teachings of their respective Gods and will have their own definitions of “Good” and “Evil”. Seeing as most people know that there are traditions in which followers will take upon an even where they must fast for a certain number of days (varies by religion). In Catholicism, we fast for penance for our sins. The Catholics, believe that this is a good deed in order to redeem oneself, for others this can be seen as a bad thing. One of the bad reasons could be harming ourselves by starvation.

Good and Bad aren’t defined by most of us, everyone defines those two words differently. Either those words are defined to us by experience (What satisfies or upsets us), wealth (The means in what money can provide vs how it can manipulate/change people), or even religion (What God believes is good for us and what he deems to be unholy).  But as time moves on, Good and Bad continue to be re-defined by the people on this Earth. No matter who tries to best define it, it seems as if these words will have a limbo for people to follow.

-Faustino Mendez

Truth to Friedrich Nietzsche is nothing more than the human mind’s ever-changing perceptions. The truth was established based on what people wanted to hear in order to create a feeling of reality that appealed to people’s minds and intellects. Truth is founded on the creation of metaphors that have evolved into a type of belief and, as a result, are seen as the truth upon which reality is founded. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, in his piece, “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense, he believes that truth is “a mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthro- pomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation; and decoration” (878). To put it another way, there really is no such thing as truth. Truth is nothing more than a set of metaphors devised to produce an appealing aesthetic for humans. Then there’s the question of whether truth is the same for everyone or if the truth is only accepted when people wish to accept it. Friedrich Nietzsche thought that society forces people to be truthful. But, if being truthful is a social requirement, who defines what constitutes truth and what constitutes a lie? This is the question that Nietzsche brings up. We, as humans, consider truth to be a fact. A human who states the facts is seen as a trustworthy individual, but those who lie are regarded as threats to society. What if, on the other hand, people believe in two separate truths? Can truths change depending on people’s perceptions and the reality that has been forced on them? Yes, Friedrich Nietzsche believes they can, and as a result, he believes truth is nothing more than a never-ending army of metaphors. Metaphors were created on the basis of tolerance and logic. If people have different acceptances and logic, then there is no such thing as truth. There is only a list of never-ending metaphors and perceptions that vary within individuals. “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”(878). What causes something to get cold? Is it the truth if something is cold? Is it possible for people’s perceptions of cold to be subjective? Friedrich Nietzsche is attempting to persuade his audience of the importance of these problems. Truth is derived from cultural ideas that have evolved into “customary metaphors” and, as a result, are nothing more than deceptive illusions that have been deceiving people for years. A fact is something that is classified as true, but where did such facts come from if not from science? “Coins which, having lost their stamp, are now regarded as metal and no longer as coins” (878). When coins lose their stamp, who came up with the idea that they are no longer coins? Why does this one concept come to pass and become a common metaphor that forces itself on society? The conclusion is that humans are duped into believing the truth. Humans pursue the truth because if they don’t, society will judge them as untrustworthy. There is no such thing as reality because there is no such thing as truth. Reality is built on metaphors that have been developed imaginatively. Reality is nothing more than a reflection of what humans have made for themselves after being deluded by the incessant yearning for truth. What is true and what is a lie is depicted through feelings. The terms “feeling” and “reason” are both metaphorical and subjective. So, is the truth really the truth, or is everything all a lie?

In the piece “On Truth and Lying in a Non-moral Sense” Nietzsche talks about how everything we know as a fundamental truth of the world is in fact a lie or how he likes to put, a metaphor of the truth. This can be seen on pg. 755 in the third edition of the book where he says, “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snow, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things”. The point that Nietzsche is trying to make is that these words, don’t convey what these objects really are. They are simply substations of the real thing but are never truly able to describe what those objects are in real life. So, in a sense it is only a lie that we tell ourselves about the world, since we have no other ways of expressing what those objects are with our language. Later on in the piece he points the further fallacy in the way that we so heavily rely on language to categorize how we view the world around us, when he talks about how no two leaves can be the same, but we still use the word leaf in order to describe all leaves, since have a word for each leaf in the world would be incredibly redundant. This idea of our understanding of the world being built upon by a foundation of lies is used to show how humans are unable to truly comprehend the truth of the world. Since everything we’ve come to understand has been built upon only half truths, which cannot grasp the whole picture of the world around us. Although, there is truth to what Nietzsche is saying (Ironic, I know), I disagree that our use of language is an outright lie to what the world is. Afterall, lying is stating something the opposite of what it is, but that’s not what language does. I believe much like how Culler mentions in his piece “What is Theory?” that “writing is a supplement for speech” that language in a way is a supplement for the world. Just like how certain aspects of speech can be misinterpreted, which is why there is a need for writing, our world can be misinterpreted by others which is why there is a need for language. Our use of language is a supplement for the world around us so that we can come to an agreed understanding of what the world around us is. Although, it may never fully capture the full experience it can give us a general gist of the world, making all the more comprehensible.

A central feature of this course will be the writing we do on this site.  In what follows, I will outline three things:

• a rationale for why I ask you to blog in the first place, rather than write traditional essays
• a quick primer on how to create your first post
• a simple rubric to guide your writing + an example of a good-looking post

First things first: why blog?

1. Blogging is sharable: rather than have a private circuit between you and me, we have a much more dynamic conversation across the entire class.  
2. Blogging is public, sort of: I like the idea that we are responsible for our ideas in front of broader audiences.  In practical terms, I doubt anyone is listening in most of the time, but I think it’s important that we roll up our sleeves and defend our arguments in an open and public forum as often as possible.  And of course, you can show your family/friends/pets what we’ve been up to in class.  For those who have reservations about privacy, note that a) you can only be identified via firstname+last initial, so you have relative privacy beyond our class; and b) you are free to delete your posts at the end of class.  If anyone has serious reservations despite all this, feel free to contact me.
3. Blogging is sturdy: rather than forget the piece of paper once it’s been handed back, we can link back to prior statements or observations, or to each others’. If you like, you can leave your posts up for future 306ers to see.
4. Blogging is responsive: rather than only getting comments from me, you’ll comment on and get comments on each other’s work.

What makes for an excellent post?  For this class, posts should:

• contain at least 400 words (use word count in WordPress or your word processor)
• explain a given text’s argument (or part of an argument), using quotations and paraphrases of the text with page numbers in parentheses
• engage that argument critically, noting its limitations, its links to other texts we’ve read, its unstated assumptions, etc.

Here’s a simple rubric, adapted from Mark Sample, that I will use to evaluate your work:

What do I write about? You are free to choose any focus you wish and to write about any of the texts we’re reading in any combination. A couple of caveats:

• You may write about what we’re about to discuss our what we’ve just discussed. I prefer that you not write about something we’ve discussed long ago. So, for Friday, you may write about Nietzsche or about Culler’s piece. By the time Blog Post #2 rolls around, I don’t want to hear about Nietzsche, since we’ll have moved on.
• Be careful how much you bite off. It’s better to “do more with less” than the opposite here. So a close examination of de Saussure is probably a better idea than a breezy, loose comparison of Nietzsche, de Saussure, and Derrida, in which each gets a sentence or two.
• The perfect is the enemy of the good. Getting zeroes in the gradebook for the posts is deadly. Better to dash of something that’s not your best work than to leave it blank. And it’s good discipline: no one feels like they “got it” after reading Lacan for the first time, so writing your way towards clarity, no matter how messily, is valuable.
• Use the study questions: it’s perfectly permissible–even suggested–to simply answer one of the study questions in your blog post, or to use it as a springboard for a more complex argument. They’re there, so use them!

Last but not least, here’s an example of a good-looking post.  I’ve annotated it using the hypothes.is tool, so you can see what makes it exemplary.  And remember: it’s not an exercise in cookie-cutting: your results may vary, and there are lots of ways to write an excellent post.

Greetings to students in my ENGL306/COMPL301 this term. I look forward to meeting you Monday. Note that all the other posts on this site were written by myself and prior students, who have left their work here for your benefit.

To help us contextualize the “mirror stage” essay, which narrates the formation of the ego and the advent of the “imaginary” in psychological life, check out this diagram:

This “knot” helps us see a few important things at once:

• there are three zones that constitute the subject:
  • the Real is roughly equivalent to the Freudian “id”: it is “unsayable” and not representable in any direct way; the infant is all “Real,” in what appears to fully-developed subjects as a chaotic space, one that Kristeva describes for us as the “chora” and which Williams James once described as a “booming, buzzing confusion”
  • the Imaginary is dominated by preverbal signs, images that are tightly bound to the figure of the mother and the desires that attach to her
  • the Symbolic is the familiar world of Saussurean “structure”: we enter the symbolic by acquiring language, and we acquire language because the “father” forbids untrammeled access to the mother to meet all our needs. For “father” we can substitute widely: God, ideology, language, morality, all the “centers” in Derrida’s sense that govern the structures we live in. We speak language with some agency, but we don’t choose the “langue”: to speak is to be a “subject” in Althusser’s sense of the linguistic order. A subject, in order to meet their desires/needs, must channel them through this structure, with all the limitations and frustrations and repressions this entails.
• These zones are only separate in theory: we don’t leave the Imaginary and Real behind when we enter the Symbolic as we acquire language. Thus the overlapping areas, which I won’t get into in any detail. But when we identify with the protagonist in a movie or respond to the seductive voice of a singer or fly into a rage at a partner’s odd habits for reasons we don’t understand, these reactions stem from these overlapping spaces. So, a Freudian slip overlaps symbolic/Real; weeping in the movies overlaps the Imaginary/Symbolic; a “symptom” in which the body is “speaking” through us (let’s say a compulsion to count to seven every time we cross train tracks) represents the crossroads of all three zones “talking at once.”