When reading Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying In a Non-Moral Sense”, we are asked to figure out what his concept of truth is. It is much more complex than simply stating that telling the truth is good and lying is not. Rather, he goes on to discuss the roots of truth and where it originates from. Language and the play of words are both crucial factors in this theory in order to understand what truth is to Nietzsche.

Nietzsche writes, “Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor…” (p.768), and from this we can see that Nietzsche is very critical about the essence of truth, that it is a not real thing. He argues that truth is simply a metaphor that is used so frequently until we forget where it came from, and as a result we declare it as the truth. As humans we claim to have immense knowledge, but the truth in all of this knowledge has been replaced by metaphors and illusions; we make ourselves believe the lie and declare it as the truth.

In our society, human beings produce the moral impulse to not lie, but Nietzsche does not agree to the existing society or its ways, so he dismisses the idea of the truth as well. Nietzsche discusses how important language is in order to decipher the truth. It is questionable that language expresses all realities. Both language and writing can be easily deceptive, such as poetry and art. When trying to figure out what they mean, we have to observe several different perspectives in order to find the truth. Nietzsche argues that a person who has the ability to have multiple perspectives on a certain idea is one step closer to discovering the truth. However, most people will only try to make their own personal perspective into a reality rather than trying to explore the views of others. Nietzsche writes, “Human beings do not so much flee from being tricked as from being harmed by being tricked.” (p. 766). As human beings, we are willing to accept the truth only when it won’t harm us, otherwise we choose to be deceived by lies, because it is the safer alternative. I do not believe that Nietzsche is necessarily saying that the truth doesn’t exist, but rather that the truth is not something that most human beings can easily perceive.

Nietzsche forms his argument by first discussing that intellect is human and goes on to explain why there is a false appearance of the truth. He poses his argument as a conversation with himself, asking a series of questions and then answering them. One of his questions is What is truth. It is apparent that Nietzsche is trying to form a theory about truth, and it is much more complex that saying that truth is good and lies are bad. Language plays a big role in his argument and he asserts that words are symbols for things which in turn become concepts.

During his essay Nietzsche seems to be critical of truth. He writes, “Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour,…” 768. Metaphors have replaced the truth in language. Therefore, it is no longer truth, humans have created a lie and has been used so frequently that it has mistakenly become the truth. We are so knowledgeable, yet all this knowledge we know is just metaphors. His conversation on language leads me to believe that language in itself has become deceptive and synthetic.

Later in the essay it is discussed that those who try to reconstruct language challenge and change these arbitrary meanings, such as poets and artists. We have to look through many different perspectives in order to reach the truth. Nietzsche is arguing that we must be willing to open up and live moment by moment, rather than living a life that somehow has a tangible meaning. As humans we lack the ability to understand truth according to Nietzsche, “Truth too, is only desired by human beings in a similarly limited sense. They desire the pleasant, life preserving consequences of the truth” 766. As humans, we are only willing to accept truth when it is not going to harm us, rather choosing to accept and be deceived by lies. It applies to the way we view the truth in the sense that it is something that is only good. Truth rather is intertwined with lies, therefore never being pure.

After reading Nietzsche argument and understanding his definition of truth I have to agree. As humans we cannot be subjective in regards to truth. I don’t particularly think that Nietzsche wants us to believe that their is no truth, but rather that truth is something that may not be pleasant or that is purely truth. We must try to reconstruct and refashion language to give it life.

“On Truth and Lying in a Nonmoral Sense” by Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche delved into an analysis of what “truth” means throughout the reading and its intermingling with “lying”. The analysis that  “truth” are “illusions of which we have established, canonical, and binding; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions…” (768) is a theory that I have come upon before. I deeply believe that we should question the social systems that we have been built upon and that through hegemony and government are enforced. At the same time I don’t agree that they are “illusions”, because these systems that have become “truths” hold material impact on our everyday life. I feel that this “truth” is not included in Nietzsche article.  

Nietzsche also goes further into this analysis as he delves into an existential crisis by asking the question “what do human beings really know about themselves?”(765) This questions to me seems to address two points. One, is that though in our world we are bombarded with messages about life purposes, desires… etc, we are expected to know enough about ourselves. Thus this question- is a change- as it leaves us open to growth- we are on our way to learning more about ourselves if we make more space for even the unknown. That’s where I think the second point I see come form which is- this question of how we view ourselves in the face of this world- that we are also labeling with our own “truths”.

Nietzsche delves into this idea of perception throughout his article as well. Nietzsche says that nature does not conform to this laws. Nature doesn’t see the “objective truths” that mankind has pushed. Nietzsche has this example– where he compares the different perception of a bird and human being. The idea that we should take into account other perceptions of a certain view point I believe is important. It is a way that we can challenge our own “truths” because we will see that it will not apply to everyone.  I think this viewpoint that Nietzsche provides would give people more room to really look at their perspective- what are they missing out- what “truths are holding them back”… etc.

Throughout reading this piece by Nietzsche I thought about if there were any “universal truths” that are hold by human beings and two- legged and multi legged creatures and other beings. I don’t believe there are any “universal truths” that are hold by everyone- at a surface level- but I believe deep down into our souls we do have more common “universal truths”. I also believe it’s okay that not everyone has to have the same “universal truth” however I do believe in community- and that there are people who have the same viewpoints as me and that will support me.

When a German guy with a crazy mustache opens his mind, its crazy what discoveries he can make about the reality of this world.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche thought deeply on the nature of what is true and what is false. He thought deeply on the nature of language. He comes to a conclusion that what we think to be true is actually false and that language is actually dead.

Nietzsche identifies the “truth”, saying, “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snow, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves,” I believe he is trying to remind us of our own personalities as human beings, saying that we are very arrogant. That we proudly make claims to show that we have some form of knowledge. He recognizes that the possession or the lack of knowledge is the key determining factor that distinguishes one human being from another and that when we try to boast of how powerful we are, we always do so by showing how much we know. However, in the same exact sentence, he launches an attack on this “truth”, saying that, “and yet we only possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.” By saying this, I feel that he is blatantly saying that humans talk a big game, but really have no idea what they’re talking about. Since the things we say are only metaphors and don’t actually correspond to what something actually is, he’s implying that we don’t have any idea of what things actually are, otherwise why wouldn’t we address them as they actually were?  (Nietzsche 767)

Clearly, there is much truth to what Nietzsche is saying about our modern idea of what “truth” is. Humans don’t actually identify an existence in its infinite status. Humans identify an existence as its present, very finite status, more specifically, what they’re looking at, right then and there, at that exact moment. Moreover, a person will give a name to that something and then no more than a day later this same person may give that same thing a completely different name. Even moreover that, the initial name that they gave to the existence, they will give to another existent. Our idea of what we think is truth is always changing due to our own arbitrary borders. We don’t stop to appreciate an existence for its infinite meaning, a meaning that will never fall subject to modification or manipulation by human beings.

Nietzsche identifies “language” as metaphors when he says, “The stimulation of a nerve is first translated into an image: first metaphor! The image is then imitated by a sound: second metaphor!” He sets this as the basis of all language. He describes to us that when we see something, our brain comes up with an idea of what it is, an image. This image is followed up by an arbitrary sound so that it can be identified. I feel that the main point is that the sound is arbitrary. It can change if it needs to be changed and because of this flexibility, the sound loses its romantic bond to the image. The image, regardless of the sound that we give to it, has its own natural sound, which is only recognized by the one who created it. The image is in love with its natural sound, which is undefinable by us. Due to our inability to understand what the image’s true natural sound really is, we can never do it any justice because we can never give it any significant relationship to its sound. (Nietzsche 767)

Nietzsche says that due to our extensive use and categorization of these languages, that it has become like a columbarium. He says, “the great edifice of concepts exhibits the rigid regularity of a Roman columbarium,” and that these concepts are “the left-over residue of metaphors,” Each of these sounds that we subjectively assign to the images that we see are, to us, concepts. When we find a concept which is better than an existing one, we replace it and over time we as humans have replaced many concepts with ones that we think are better, when in reality, we are launching ourselves further away from the original sounds of the images that we once had, from the original metaphor that gave to an image to relate it to a sound. I think what he’s saying is that due to our indecisiveness, we have mangled the language so much so that it became a hollow, rigid, soulless, shell of what it once use to be. (Nietzsche 768)

Although I understand and agree with what he is saying about our idea of “language”, I strongly feel that this is necessary for our existence to cooperate with itself. We formulate the concepts that form a language for our own convenience because of our very specific lack of ability to identify the eternal state of a creation. We must always speak with ourselves in a way that doesn’t cause any problems within our intellectual homes. If we have to toss out a concept because there’s a better one, it would be something which is easy to do and easy to spread. It is infinitely more difficult if not impossible for us to try and dissect a creation in order to find its true sound. I feel that it was just never meant to be that way, otherwise all of intelligence that humankind possess would have already come together and come up with a solution. I think that there is no cure for this because its not a disease, its merely a necessary wound, keeping in mind that not all wounds heal.

Nietzsche centers his discussion around two concepts; truth and lying. He questions what truth is and then proceeds to define it as, “illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor, coins which, having lost their stamp, are now regarded as metal and no longer as coins” (768) Nietzsche believes that language is composed of metaphors that, over time, lose their meaning as they are over used and stripped of their original purpose. Throughout the piece, it is clear to see that Nietzsche speaks from a rather pessimistic point of view, however his arguments strongly support his views. He believes that human beings search for the truth, but how do we go about doing this? Nietzsche claims that truth is only desired in a ‘limited sense’, as humans seem to “desire the pleasant, life-preserving consequences, but they are actually hostile towards truths which may be harmful and destructive” (766) Human beings are unable to accept and understand truth in its entirety. Nietzsche then questions what the “status of those conventions of language is”, as he explains the basis of language and words. A word, according to him, is a copy of a nervous stimulus in sounds. Humans are able to translate an image, smell, or sound into a metaphorical image. In doing so, objects are given ‘traits’, which guide us into understanding what something is. He states that, “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…” (768) This process feeds into this concept of truth, as language between humans is what aids that understanding of truthfulness and lying. Our obligation to be truthful stems from our society, which imposes this concept on us in order to exist. Just as there is the obligation to tell the truth, there is the opposite, which is lying. One can be truthful when describing something as ‘red’ or they cannot, but either way, it is engrained in humans and both should be understood and accepted.

Another aspect of this piece that I found interesting was Neitzsche’s ability to incorporate gender into his discussion. He states, “we divide things up by gender, describing a tree as masculine and a plant as feminine—how arbitrary these translations are!” (766) He explains how humans create this idea of “gender binaries” through language. He claims that these descriptions are rather arbitrary and lack depth, as they are deemed “one-sided”. He speaks of “twisting movements” of a snake and a worm and describes just how that is not nearly enough to set the two apart and make them distinct in their own right. Nietszche then continues to say where words are concerned, the truth and adequate expression are not the main priority, otherwise there would not be so many languages. Nietzsche is able to grasp many concepts of truth and lying and intertwine them with the basic understanding of human beings and our society.

NOTE: I used a different version of the reading so the wording for the quotes may look a little different.

Link to pdf: http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_7421.pdf

Nietzsche starts his essay speaking about human beings as a distant species. He categorizes humans as “the most unfortunate, delicate, ephemeral beings(1)”. He goes on explaining how as humans we think we are more important than we really are. We feel as if the universe revolves around us. He uses an example with a gnat to prove this point. Nietzsche says that if we could communicate with a gnat we would discover that the gnat would feel that it is the center of universe as well. Why do humans think they are so important? The answer is knowledge. Knowledge can make unimportant things seem important and that’s why according to Nietzsche the proudest human of all is the philosopher. I agree with Nietzsche. Even though each organism doesn’t share the same equivalency of knowledge. If we could speak to any organism I believe that they would feel the same way as humans. As though they are more important than they really are.

One of the main points Nietzsche makes in this essay is that deception is one of the main factors of language. According to Nietzsche “truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins(4)” As humans we will not be able to get any type of truth because our language is filled with metaphors. We think we know about things themselves but we only know about the metaphors for those things. So the big question is…do we really know the truth about anything? If we have no idea about what the true meanings of things are then we absolutely know nothing. We have forgotten their true origins.

Nietzsche also points out that we ourselves have no clue what is even going on with our own bodies. Most things in nature we are not even aware of so how can we perceive ourselves. Nature keeps us in a deceptive consciousness. Humans are living in a dream world and unaware of what is happening. Nietzsche later on says “But at the same time, from boredom and necessity, man wishes to exist socially and with the herd(2)” Human beings are often influenced by many factors and one of those factors are our peers. That peers’ influence can influence people to adopt certain behaviors. As humans we have an urge to follow the crowd. An example that came to my mind of this herd like behavior would be Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers. Hitler couldn’t have killed thousands of people by himself. With the Nazi influence behind Hitler he was able to execute and kill thousands of people. Herd like behavior can also be seen in many religions.

Nietzsche’s whole argument can be very convincing. I agree that the idea of truth and lie is a very flawed concept. The idea of truth doesn’t exist in nature. So does that mean that truth doesn’t exist at all? I’m not exactly certain if Nietzsche believes in truth at all but, if that is what he is suggesting then I don’t agree. There might be truth out there and we just haven’t found it yet.

Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense is a fascinating piece on humanity. The piece begins with Nietzsche talking about how intellect is human and we humans are the possessor and progenitor of intellect. (764) We humans are curious about the universe and want to explore the secrets of it, however humans deceive each other with lies because of arrogance that comes with intellect. Nietzsche wrote, “art of dissimulation reaches its peak in humankind, where deception, flattery, lying and cheating, speaking behind the backs of others, keeping up appearances, living in borrowed finery, wearing masks, the drapery of convention, play-acting for the benefit of others and oneself-in short…”(765) The quote portrays how a person will hide their own thoughts so he/she can be accepted by others. This will benefit the person as he/she will be accepted to what other believes and the other will benefit as their version of truth gets solidified by people supporting it. Furthermore, Nietzsche also wrote that “in the state of nature he mostly used his intellect for concealment and dissimulation; however, because necessity and boredom also lead men to want to live in societies and herds, they need a peace treaty…”(765) This line is similar to a Japanese proverb where it says, “A person have three faces. The first face, you show to the world. The second face, you show to your close friends, and your family. The third face, you never show anyone. It is the truest reflection of who you are.” We have a face to show to the world and be accepted by the world. No one wants to be rejected as it hurts to feel like an outcast. We rather be tricked and deceived by lies then to find out the absolute truth which can hurt. As Nietzsche wrote, “…they do not hate deception but rather the damaging…”(765)  In a way humans are hypocrites as we shame people who lie, yet we feel comfort when lies are able to deceive and make a person feel better of themselves. This is similar to a saying where it states, “Sometimes not knowing is better than knowing.” A person can’t acknowledge what is not there therefore can only react to what he knows. If the person doesn’t know the truth that can potentially harm him/her, the person will feel much more at ease and not be troubled. It is weird as the truth can harm the person, yet if we lie and get caught it will hurt both side of the party. The liar will never be trusted and the person receiving the lie will be hurt by the truth, yet we usually use lies to get out of problems. It may be because of the chance of us being able to escape the consequences of telling the truth at the moment that we lie.

Nietzsche also talks about how we blindly follow so called “truth”. He wrote, “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force…”(767) Nietzsche believes truth is the creation of man and not a fact. We take truth and put it on a high pedestal, but we also forget truth can be lies forged by man. We may believe that the truth is the absolute truth, but it can still be a lie because it developed as a habit. So much so that we lie unconsciously.

The truth hurts and Nietzsche is able to display that in his writing. We want to believe we are perfect, but in reality we are far from it. We lie to ourselves making ourselves believe what we say is the truth. We put on faces to fit in and feel accepted, but what we believe is right is repressed to the back of our mind. I do agree with Nietzsche that truths and lies are mixed together and is hard to tell which one is which. I believe subjects that require facts should not be tampered by emotions and lie as best as possible. Even if it hurts people who sees it. There are other places where you can express your opinions such as rants and blogs.

Alexis Manzano

Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Nietzsche… On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense

Imagine our planet Earth, among the nine planets that orbit the Sun. If you zoom out far enough, you’ll notice the planets group into one galaxy. Further out, our galaxy is amongst the dozens, then hundreds of galaxies that glow against the dark sea of the Universe. Now try and imagine, where Earth is, imagine our “pale blue dot” of a planet. Two things you’ve noticed from reading this, one, that you’re reading a terrible version of the astronomer Carl Sagan’s speech, about the moral allegory of the pale blue dot; and two, the tone of my “zoom-out-then-zoom-in” template is relatively calm—or at least I try to render calmness.   Contrast this, to the shift of tonal pessimism of Nietzsche’s opening paragraph, describing our cognitive inheritance versus the indomitable Mother Nature, and you get the overtone of Part One-of-Two essays.

In essence, the author makes the point that human cognition, of his time and  historically-speaking, is to blame for all the human-centric-ness, which has plagued humans, and ironically himself, through the disillusion of “the value of existence” (p.765). Further, he explains that we can regain our “truthful” selves, as I will elaborate later, by engaging with our unique senses with the object at present, as opposed to what, according to the author, all beings either unknowingly or carelessly indifferent towards, construct—through the process of internalizing an image, followed by the psychological nervous sound, and ending through convoluted language—a distorted reality.

To start, it is important to realize how warped a vision (perspective) can become, when it views human beings, and groups all of humans—and unintentionally himself, when he mentions, “The philosopher, wants to see, on all sides, the eyes of the universe trained, as through telescopes, on his thoughts and deeds (764).”—as existentially ignorant and possibly incapable of philosophical pursuit, later asking “What do human beings really know about themselves? Are they even capable of perceiving themselves in their entirety just once…(765).” Even if you ignored the tonal quality of his rhetoric, and critically respond to what he’s theorizing—as I will in a moment—you will sense, that his main humanitarian argument, does not age well, because it lacks individual nuance.

Nietzsche, certainly a philosopher, asks two key questions, or rather progresses into it: what is truth, and to quote “…where on earth can the drive to truth possibly have come from?”(765) Truth, to paraphrase his long sentence of pg. 768, is an illusion of the object of the subject, we don’t view as an illusion anymore, say—to muse the example of the Roman Catholic’s claim upon the sky to be the kingdom of God on pg. 769—, the cumulus clouds are an illusion of Heaven; despite the grand notion of a deity to reinforce this allusion, overtime, this non-atheist objective illusion of Heaven, is truth.   He arrives to the idea, from human’s cognitive ability, to dissimilate (765), according to Webster Dictionary, “the concealment of one’s thoughts, feelings, or character.” Further, he claims that humans will engage in dissimilation to protect both (1) themselves and/or the “family, country, social group” (765; fn 3) s/he cares for; and (2) so they can understand their post-wilderness societal world at present.

According to the author, human beings enter society out of “necessity and boredom” (765), that leads a lying, selfish, “murderous” (766; fn. 4), of a being to enter a peace treaty: the society’s provision that truth is demanded from it’s citizens, for entrance through their “gates”. Therefore, as he claims, this creates a new inheritance of intuitiveness, and engages in “that mysterious drive for truth” (766). Furthermore, a human entering through the gates, will provide truth, and can only determine truth, when s/he has discovered truth, and because of the human’s natural disposition of dissimulation, the mechanism of language, that facilitates a lie, would “use the valid tokens of designation—words—to make the unreal appear to be real.” (766).

To fast-forward to my frank point, the further you read, the author proclaims why humans habitually lie, saying it’s out of conventional (768) pleasure, as humans are indifferent to “pure knowledge if it has no consequences” (766), for example—and not to offend geologist or hobbyist—like casually knowing the specific name of a rock. And through the lens of illusion, humans fabricate concepts—through image, sound, then language (767)—to create an conceptual edifice (771), as opposed to a perceiving the present through sensuous faculties (770) –say, experiencing a rose’s non-expressive (770) colour, shape, and aroma, versus conceptualizing it as a symbol of love, incidentally ejecting you from the garden of the moment, and into an intellectual sphere of further detachment from the present.

Here’s the issue, as mentioned in the opening, the author’s pessimistic tone speaks loud to the astigmatic rhetoric, that either omits—which is unlikely—, or fails to incorporate the individual, for the author casually groups all humans, into one rhetorical noun. The individual, as he admits, so long as s/he doesn’t harm (772) anyone, or, to paraphrase philosopher de Beauvoir’s existential view, so long as no one’s freedom is impacted, then let the disillusion senses, continue to perceive the unknown objects of the world, through images, sounds, language, turned into metaphor, evolving into a concept.

The problem with the author stance, is figuratively speaking his stance, as in, his privileged perspective, where he can appreciate the object in front of him, using his senses, because he was taught how to appreciate, say a large painting. Personally, before I began appreciating a painting, I used to find analogous images, say like, a Pollock looks like a stretched-out dirty apron, versus appreciating its psychological beauty of random occurrences. The crude similes would, eventually, peak my interest enough to invest more time reading/being in front of the painting; but even if I never reach that level of interest, it’s not going to harm anyone.

Ultimately, I do agree with one point, as he, in a surprisingly calm tone, ends in Part Two, synthesizing the intellectual, and intuitive pursuit, (773) so as to both balance that individual; meaning s/he is prudent and well aware of their present surrounding, and has the courage to pursue their interest of any degree.