An Analysis of Nietzsches On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense - Essay Example

An Analysis of Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense FriedrichNietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense represents a deconstruction of the modern epistemological project. Instead of seeking for truth, he suggests that the ultimate truth is that we have to live without such truth, and without a sense of longing for that truth. This revolutionary work of his is divided into two main sections. The first part deals with the question on what is truth? Here he discusses the implication of language to our acquisition of knowledge. The second part deals with the dual nature of man, i.e. the rational and the intuitive. He establishes that neither rational nor intuitive man is ever successful in their pursuit of knowledge due to our illusion of truth. Therefore, Nietzsche concludes that all we can claim to know are interpretations of truth and not truth itself. Analysis In the first part of his work, Nietzsche asserts that: “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” (Nietzsche 451-452). Here, it seems that Nietzsche is trying to reject any empirical sense of gaining knowledge. For example, I know that I am sitting on a wooden chair because I can see the chair, feel the texture of the wood, touch it, and even smell the aroma of it. But Nietzsche argues that we only perceive the surface of things, and our “senses nowhere lead to the truth" (Nietzsche 452). This is what Nietzsche meant by using the analogy of our senses being like a “blinding fog over the eyes” and thus deceiving us on our knowledge about things. But how do we know what is true from what is false? What is truth as opposed to lies? Here, Nietzsche introduces the concept of man as a social being who creates peace among society and forms a general consensus in the process of doing so. He once more establishes his point by saying that “this peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive” (Nietzsche 452). Furthermore, he argues that “a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time” (Nietzsche 452-453). In other words, Nietzsche establishes his foundation of truth as opposed to lies. Since the development of language, all its representations are, according to Nietzsche, lies. Language is a form of self-deception, which humans have created to convince themselves that the unreal is real. Indeed, Nietzsche asks, “Is language the adequate expression of all realities?” (Nietzsche 453). The emphasis here is the one to one correspondence of an object to that of its spoken word. For example, when I a rainbow, the first thing that I associate with it is color. Almost anyone would understand me if associate the word “color” to the object “rainbow”. However, consider the following scenario: what if you were never exposed to color? Since you were born into this world, you were kept inside a house that had only shades of gray. In short, what if the world you consider as real is all in black and white? Now consider that this person saw a “rainbow” outside his window for the first time, would he associate the term “color” with it? Would he even know what “color” means? This is the point that Nietzsche wants us to understand regarding language. I quote, “It is this way with all of us concerning language: we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things - metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities” (Nietzsche 454). Thus, Nietzsche concludes that “the genesis of language does not proceed logically in any case, and all the material within and with which the man of truth, the scientist, and the philosopher later work and build, if not derived from never-never land, is at least not derived from the essence of things” (Nietzsche 454). Simply put, our knowledge is designated by language, which is in turn characterized by metaphors. Metaphors do not provide us with ultimate knowledge for we gain knowledge of things as we conceptualize it only in relation to something else. Therefore, we know believe to know that we know something but in reality, it is only an illusion. So what becomes of truth? Here, Nietzsche establishes his position: 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. 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 (Nietzsche 455). What does this imply? It simply implies on fact of life for human beings – that the truth is, we can never know the truth. Hence, Nietzsche concludes that if one ought to be truthful, then ironically, one ought to lie, based on general consensus. For, truth is nothing more than a product of anthropomorphism. It is a man-made law and thus, does not lead to ultimate truths. As Nietzsche would put it, “it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be "true in itself" or really and universally valid apart from man” (Nietzsche 456). Hence, one’s pursuit of truth is merely one’s pursuit of metaphor. The second section of Nietzsche’s work is much more brief than the first. It explores this will to metaphor as a pursuit that formed the world of art and myth. Furthermore, he claims that, “man has an invisible 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 . . .” It is while man is being deceived that the intellect works wonders, ever more creative and clever. Hence, art, myth and metaphor can be understood here as illusory art. It being illusory, it can be construed as a form of deception that does not seek to deceive, and so in one way, it is lying in a nonmoral sense. To illustrate his framework, Nietzsche tells us to imagine two opposite types of human beings, i.e. the rational and the intuitive man. But setting aside their contradicting nature, they have one thing in common; I quote, “they both desire to rule over life: the former, by knowing how to meet his principle needs by means of foresight, prudence, and regularity; the latter, by dis­ regarding these needs and, as an "overjoyed hero," counting as real only that life which has been disguised as illusion and beauty” (Nietzsche 460). However, Nietzsche shows that neither of these two beings will ever succeed; both are doomed to suffer. “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” (Nietzsche 461). To compensate for this, he introduces a third kind of human being, i.e. the stoical man. It is with a detailed description of this stoical man that Nietzsche ends his work, by saying that: How differently the stoical man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfor­ tunes! This man, who at other times seeks nothing but sincerity, truth, free­ dom from deception, and protection against ensnaring surprise attacks, now executes a masterpiece of deception: he executes his masterpiece of deception in misfortune, as the other type of man executes his in times of happiness. He wears no quivering and changeable human face, but, as it were, a mask with dignified, symmetrical features. He does not cry; he does not even alter his voice. When a real storm cloud thunders above him, he wraps himself in his cloak, and with slow steps he walks from beneath it (Nietzsche 461). The main reason why Nietzsche introduced this third person is to show what it is to show the contrast of the herd1 or society. For, this stoical man does not regret reality for what it is, and who, regardless of the absence of truth, simply endures that world for what it is. He does not subscribe to any form of abstraction, nor does he considers himself as part of society, for society cannot accept reality as it is. Conclusion It is easy to ignore what one makes no effort to understand. Nietzsche, in this work of his, indeed showed the most neglected aspect of reality, i.e. truth. We always believe that we know something when it fact, we never ask ourselves why we know it. We tend to take for granted what counts the most in this world, that is, knowing ourselves. Human beings think that knowledge of things will lead them to enlightenment. But in reality, it is nothing but an illusion made by man himself to create a kind of path towards success. Those who follow this path will get nowhere close to success, rather, they bring upon suffering along the way, pulling us farther from ourselves. Thus, if only we were aware of this deceptive nature of language and metaphor to that of knowledge, we would come to understand that truth indeed is nothing but a man-made word and is therefore a mere figment of our imagination. The facts do not count, only our interpretations of them. So it seems that Reality then isn’t so far from our dreams, perhaps it’s really the other way around. Read More