As an economics major, I am a firm believer in both math and science. There are specific truths in each subject, with constructs built around these truths that facilitate eternal human progress. Friedrich Nietzsche, however, would call me a fool, as he argues in his social commentary, “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”: the moment these truths began to hit the human race “it was the most arrogant and the most mendacious minute” (764). In his piece, Nietzsche delves into an exploration on how humans portray their “truths”, and how the idea of “truths” came into existence to begin with. He tries to prove the chaos behind these truths, but in doing so only makes me feel more secure in them.

Nietzsche’s main argument is that humans utilize symbols to portray truths, which include ideas, pictures, objects, etc. An example he uses is the utilization of language as a symbol to convey ideas, which in turn waters down the truths. Nietzsche argues, however, that the words of any language “dissolve an image into a concept,” which therefore makes words almost dishonest, because what do these words mean to begin with (768)? He uses the word “leaf” as an example, to show that when one says this word it only refers to a particular type of flora, but in reality it takes away all the specificities of the one piece of said flora that could have been portrayed (767). For example, it strips away the colors, the lines, the shape and everything unique about this leaf to bring it to one concept easily understood by a mass population. Nietzsche then states that after the foundation of abstract metaphors built by words, come the constructs of science, which categorizes the world to make it easier to understand and follow set universal orders (769). His big argument, however, comes down to the fact that by placing everything in categories, “It constantly confuses the cells and the classifications of concepts by setting up new translations, metaphors, [and] metonymies” (772). With all these basal meanings to portray intricate ideas, we water things down and live in a rabbit-hole world of symbols as opposed to pure honesty.

I cannot argue with Nietzsche that we do live in a world of symbols and dishonesty, especially in a 21^st century filled with confusing text messages and filtered Instagram pictures. I cannot, however, condone the ultimate bashing of language and science that Nietzsche brings forth. Humans do indeed have a basic instinct to bring order to this very chaotic world, and I do not believe that this is a bad thing. While words and science bring more and more questions to the human world, this chaos is still less chaotic to the alternative: no questions answered, and no social constructions to guide the human race at all. Even Nietzsche himself brings up the idea of these constructs barring us from a “war of all against all” (766). And while dishonesty and discord may have arisen from the symbols and science that humans have created, is that not better than total confusion and strife amongst the human race?

In Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense, he talks about how within the realm of nature, the entire existence of humans has held the significance of a mere minute.  He claims that we have separated ourselves from nature, yet in a constant search for the truth, we rely on our own invented system of deception.  We place a high value on knowledge, yet according to Nietzsche, the pride we take in “knowing” is a lie, for has nothing to do with the actual meaning of reality.  It is ironic that we take such pride in intelligence, degrees, prestigious careers, and status, considering all knowledge is in fact a man-made creation.  We created science in order to understand nature, yet in doing so, we further separated ourselves from the natural world.  “By these standards, the human being is an architectural genius who is far 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).  In saying this, Nietzsche is basically claiming that nothing in the world we live in is real.  

We are each at the center of our own perceived world.  In an effort to organize our world in a moral and truthful way, we have created an endless series of metaphors to describe life from the human perspective.  Language is chief of these metaphors.  “The stimulation of a nerve is first translated into an image: first metaphor!  The image is then imitated by a sound: second metaphor!” (767).  All of a sudden, we have a sound or series of sounds that are used to describe an object or sensation that really is just nerve stimulus.  However, it is not the actual thing, and is therefore a lie.  A universally accepted lie, yes, but still a lie.  For humans to live in society with one another, this type of deception is a moral requirement.  We have created a “new world of laws, privileges, subordinations, definitions of borders, which now confronts the other, sensuously perceived world as something firmer, more general, more familiar, and more human.” (768).  Yet we are only one species on this earth let alone the universe.  I do not perceive the world the same way my cat does or the houseplant or the cockroach.  As long as all of our names and rules do not apply to anything other than Homo sapiens, is it possible to ever have the “correct” perception of the world?

What is the truth and what is a lie is completely subjective. What is truth? How do you define truth? What we know or what we think we know is just a metaphor as Nietzsche states,”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, coins which, having lost their stamp and regarded as metal and no longer as coins” (768). There are things we can identify such as leaves or trees, yet this image we have in our minds is merely a concept. We use that concept of the stimuli and create a sound for it. All the words we use to describe an object, “the stone is hard” (766), is intangible. Nietzsche uses this sentence to explain that there are no truth to words. We use the word “hard” to describe the property of an object as we do “good” and “bad.” Nietzsche argues that words are arbitrary, they only serve only as a vague border or guideline of classification to label this concept, yet there is no ultimate truth to the word as it can be completely subjective as it differs from person to person.

It isn’t until a person reaches a level of unconsciousness where they can truly arrive at the feeling of truth. When we forget the words, we are able to come closer to the truth. Nietzsche states, “The feeling that one is obligated to describe one thing as red, another as cold, and a third as dumb prompts a moral impulse which pertains to truth; from its opposite, the liar whom no one trusts and all exclude, human beings demonstrate to themselves just how honorable, confidence-inspiring and useful truth is. As creatures of reason, human beings now make their actions subject to the rule of abstractions; they no longer tolerate being swept away by sudden impressions and sensuous perceptions; they now generalize all these impressions first, turning them into colder, less colourful concepts in order to harness the vehicle of their lives and actions to them” (768). When we think of the word leaf, we have a general conception of what a leaf is. When we forget the metaphor that of which the leaf represents, and we use words to describe it as red, small, wet, and other words, we come closer to what the leaf actually is, a step closer to the truth of the concept of the leaf.

Ultimately, what we call “truth” and a “lie” is all just concepts created by man. In nature, these things do not exist. It is made by humans to categorize classifications and it is completely subjective because we are all “artistically created subjects” (770). There is no corrrect perception as there is no two perceptions that are the same. So we go back to the first question– what is truth? Truth is what you perceive it to be. Your truth is entirely yours and my truth is mine.

Nietzsche starts this piece by letting us know that humans are indeed the “most unfortunate, most delicate and most transient of beings,” which is only the beginning of his attack on mankind. (764) He continues to write how the human idea of truth is composed of arbitrary ideas created by language. Truth as we know it, according to Nietzsche, is hidden though metaphors ” which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor,” and illusions “of which we have forgotten that they are illusions.” (768). On top of this, we have put everything in categories and put labels on everything, thus taking away any magic and real truth it held. Basically, Nietzsche claims that by humans creating this type of “truth,” we have only succeeded in creating lies.

Speaking of lies, Nietzsche does write some about purposeful and clear lies that humans tell and the way in which we react to them. He writes about the manner in which humans respond to harmful lies, which of course is mistrust. Nietzsche claims this reaction is not so much from being lied to or tricked, but rather because of the harm that comes with being tricked. He then writes “Truth, too, is only desired by human beings in a similarly limited sense. They desire the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth; they are indifferent to pure knowledge if it has no consequences, but they are actually hostile towards truths which may be harmful and destructive.” (766) This reminds me of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” where he writes about coming out of the cave. because of the transition from dark to light, is hard and does cause pain, but at least you are seeing the truth. Even with that though, people do not want to leave the cave and their truths that they know. The same idea is present in some of what Nietzsche is writing. Not only does he write about humans creating false truths, but he also brings up the point that, further, our truths only speak for our species, not that of birds or insects.

Nietzsche’s whole argument about our flawed truth is very compelling, and I do agree that our language and interpretation of the world does easily lead us to believe in a made up truth, I do not believe that there is no truth, which seems to be what he is suggesting. Language, the boundaries of species, and everything else Nietzsche mentions as barriers and erasers of real truth do exist, but I do not think there can never be “a perfect match between things and their designations.” (766) He asks “Is language the full and adequate expression of all realities?” Maybe it is not, but I do not believe there is no way to find or express truth. Life cannot be that sad or worthless, can it?

How can we ever claim to know any absolute truth about things-in-themselves? Our most raw perceptions of the world are nonetheless filtered through our imperfect senses. We do not see things directly, as they truly are. Our sight is mediated through a light spectrum as it reflects off the object, is received by our retinas, and then travels through the optic nerve into the brain, creating an image. Where is “truth” in this exchange? For Nietzsche, there is none. All our cognition is inherently deceptive, as it necessarily abstracts from the thing-it-itself that it attempts to represent. Hence, “all truths are illusions which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use” (768).

Reality is messy and inconsistent. No two things are alike. Yet, as humans, we fasten a complex network of conceptions to this ever-changing milieu in an attempt to categorize and understand the world around us. In order to do so, we must ignore the infinitely diverse iterations of a thing, and instead focus only on similarity. “Every concept comes into being by making equivalent that which is non-equivalent” (767). It follows that all perceptions and conceptions are incomplete, and cannot possibly encompass all aspects of the things to which they refer. “[T]he correct perception—which would mean the full and adequate expression of an object in the subject—is something contradictory and impossible; for between two absolutely different spheres, such as subject and object are, there is no causality, no correctness, no expression, but at most an aesthetic way of relating” (770).

So what is one to do with such information? Nietzsche lays out two different types of people, “the man of reason and the man of intuition” (773). The former is one who trusts the truths that are produced by the edifice of human cognition and gains a level of stability from them. The latter forgoes such baseless truths, and liberates himself from  the inherent limitations of the edifice upon which all truth is constructed, risking the instability that entails. “[T]he one fearful of intuition, the other filled with scorn for abstraction, the latter as unreasonable as the former in unartistic” (773). It would seem that Nietzsche does not approve of either method. Perhaps there is another way?

I believe this other way can be found within Nietzsche’s writing itself, which embraces the metaphorical, contradictory nature of “truth”. Rather than using analytical arguments to support his claims, Nietzsche employs anecdotes and metaphors. In so doing, Nietzsche acknowledges the metaphorical nature of language, and does not resist it, but rather acts in accordance with it. Similarly, Nietzsche uses seemingly contradictory statements throughout his argument, as can be seen when you observe his statement that “[t]he arrogance inherent in cognition and feeling casts a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of human beings” (765), and compare it to the assertion that “one can certainly admire humanity as a mighty architectural genius who succeeds in erecting the infinitely complicated cathedral of concepts on moving foundations” (769). In the former, Nietzsche is deriding cognition for its falsity, whereas in the latter he praises its genius! How can these two viewpoints be reconciled? Well, if our logic is but another arbitrary human creation, then we need not limit our idea of “truth” to its laws. Perhaps, the illogical contradiction presented by these two statements is closer to the truth of the matter than either logical statement taken in isolation.

This brings to mind two pieces of literature that address the topic of mathematics in very different ways. The first, 1984 by George Orwell, considers the logical certainty of mathematics to be a liberating force. The stories main character, Winston, clings to pure, mathematical truth as a kind of freedom from whatever illogical insanities his dystopian society may be peddling. However wild the storm of “doublespeak” became, Winston could take solace in those few precious truths that he knew to be inviolable. “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Yet, the same type of mathematical truth is taken in a different light when one reads Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The main character of this story finds mathematical certainty to be an obstacle to the freedom of his thought. “Two times two is four—why, in my opinion, it’s sheer impudence, sirs. Two times two is four has a cocky look; it stands across your path, arms akimbo, and spits. I agree that two times two is four is an excellent thing; but if we’re going to start praising everything, then two times two is five is sometimes also a most charming little thing.” So, which is it? Is mathematical truth our liberator, or our jailer? Perhaps it can be both.

Overall, this reading was honestly depressing. As humans, we think we know things and we think we understand how the world works but we do not. Nietzsche brings up many points and concepts that I usually do not think about because, simply put, it is scary. He questions many things like whether or not humans can really know anything at all, even about humans. “What do human beings really know about themselves? Are they even capable of perceiving themselves in their entirety just once, stretched out an in an illuminated glass case?” Anything we know is through the lens of human interpretation so in reality do we know the truth about anything? How can we if we can not remove the lens of human interpretation to make our observations purely objective? Everything we know and think we know about the world is really just the human interpretation of something that is not remotely human, it is something clearly larger and tremendously more complex than we can ever fully comprehend. It can be said that this is why humans believe in things like religion. We need an order to things so that we feel safe and we need direction and guidance to feel like we are living meaningful lives. By believing in a higher power such as god, it can give a sense of security and a feeling of safety as we go through life. It is easier to go through life believing things happen because they are “meant to be” or because “god has a plan” rather than just because of chance.

Nietzsche explains another way we can realize that there is no truth is by looking at something like a bird in comparison to ourselves. If one was asked who has a better understanding of the world- a bird or human, almost everyone would probably say a human without any hesitation. However, why is that true? We understand the world from a humans perspective and to us that seems to be the truest truth but maybe it is the bird who has a better understanding of the world. They see humans for what we are on our most basic level- a species- and maybe it is foolish to believe we are anything more.

Another way Nietzsche proves that there is just no truth, is by using the example of language. Language is a series of metaphors that we use to label and categorize everything so that we have order. “What is a word? The copy of nervous stimulations in sounds.” He goes on to give the example, “The stone is hard’, as if ‘hard’ were something known to us in some other way, and not merely as an entirely subjective stimulus?” This shows that even something as crucial to human life as language, what we rely on as a truth to communicate with one another, is flawed. It is subjective- everything is. “We believe that when we speak of trees, colors, snow and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.” We create concepts and truths that make sense to us and we build on these over time. But in reality, nothing is true because what even is truth? There is a quote from the Broadway musical Wicked that states “The truth isn’t a thing of fact, or reason. It’s simply what everyone agrees on.” This quote is frighteningly accurate and in my opinion directly ties in to what Nietzsche’s whole point is: we think we know, but oh how we don’t.

There’s No Truth and I’m Scared: Nietzsche Notes On Truth and Lies

Nietzsche claims and argues on a variety of levels on the idea that deception lies within language. Pure truth is incapable of being found in our language because words we recite, read, and write are merely metaphors. A metaphor serves as a comparison or analogy that captures the essence of a thing by using another comparison to describe it. They have “no way to the original entities” rendering them only as copies of copies that rely on other essences to define them, further distorting truth. Words within our language act as images of the real thing proving that the words we choose to express ourselves are random and subjective. What we know about the “laws of nature is what we ourselves bring into them-time and space, and therefore the relationship of succession and number”.  He instills the notion that the idea of truth and language are social constructs. He ironically uses more analogies such as a bee working in it’s hive or a man in a house. It is human nature to label anthropomorphize. The consequences to this is that it strips nature of it’s mysticism/surrealism and “lead us to distrust idealism”. I’m pretty sure this means our knowledge is based in anthropomorphism or else we wouldn’t be humans without this defining feature. Though it is ruled to be destructive in it’s own right because human’s are known to label their whole world around them with metaphors which act as a jail. N questions if this human nature only limits us as a race. As an artist it makes me wonder if art is another victim of metaphor and anthropomorphism from a viewer’s perspective. N touches base on art stating that art serves no purpose to seduce our trust or beliefs. Is this liberating then?

It isn’t the duty of language to precisely frame the environment. N pokes at this idea claiming “Thus 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”. We look to records of mathematicians, historians, artists, and masters of their craft which have molded and shaped our world. If their teachings are false due to the deception within language being subjective and random, then is there more depth and truth in lies? I find it quite amusing yet very intriguing that (from what I understand) N is making us stop and rethink about the validation of the greatest minds of our history.
What N makes apparent is that every “concept” consists of what he calls unequal parts. Qualities such as deception and forgetfulness allow concepts to form. The progression of time allows one to forget the origin of truth within metaphors because they’re copies of analogies. Metaphors frequently used soon become devoid of meaning and lose their luster only to become the husk of a cliché. N claims this to be problematic when “the same image has been generate millions of times and has been handed down for many generations and finally appears on the same occasion every time for all man kind…the hardening and the congealing of a metaphor guarantees absolutely nothing concerning it’s necessity and exclusive justification”. We forget the words we use are copies of a copies, which in a way if you really think about it is a lazy way to assume the world and our environment.
N lastly compares the concepts of a liberated mindset of an intuitive man in relation to a rational person guided by concepts. The rational man is regarded as inartistic, less adventurous, guided by concepts, and aims to be free from pain. The intuitive man is opposing in many ways to his peer. He is considered irrational, confusing, believes illusion and beauty is fashioned deeply into life, relies on the culture and art to shape him. N concludes that both men suffer misfortunes but the Intuitive man suffers harsher conditions since he is incapable of foresight and learning from his mistakes. He is incapable of quelling himself emotionally from the inevitability of misfortune. Is this N’s way of showing no matter which man we are, deception is inevitable so the least we can do is learn to cope with it?

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.

So how do you post?  Once you get enrolled as an “author” on the site, it’s really easy.  Here’s a step-by-step with screen shots from Evan Cordulack at William and Mary.  I’ll also note that WordPress gives you several other ways to initiate a post, so feel free to explore the dashboard and find your own best way.

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 (see how the academic blogosphere encourages sharing and exchange?  I told you so!):

Last but not least, here’s an example of a good-looking post.  I’ve linked to it in a Word doc so you can see some marginal comments that explain why it’s good.  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.

[scribd id=164214939 key=key-2008aqo3h9215wi7sjm mode=scroll]

I know I said I wouldn’t, but I did: here are a few questions to guide your reading of the Foucault essay for Thursday. It’s rough sledding, but we’ll make sense of it in class.