In Nietzsche’s philosophical essay, “On Truth and Lying,” he argues that the entirety of language is simply a lie. Nietzsche claims that language takes things and forces them into a mold of sameness. This also has to do entirely with how humans perceive things and categorize them rather than simply observing the details of everything individually. He states, “Every concept comes into being by making equivalent that which is non-equivalent. Just as it is certain that no leaf is ever exactly the same as any other leaf, it is equally certain that the concept ‘leaf’ is formed by dropping these individual differences arbitrarily, by forgetting those features which differentiate one thing from another, so that the concept then gives rise to the notion that something other than leaves exists in nature…” (p. 755) The entire world that we, as humans, project through our language has nothing to do with what actually is and exists in the world. We categorize things and look at the bigger picture rather than paying attention to the details. “…Something other than leaves exists in nature, something which would be ‘leaf’, a primal form, say, from which all leaves were woven, drawn, delineated, dyed, curled, painted—but by a clumsy pair of hands, so that no single example turned out to be a faithful, correct, and reliable copy of the primal form” (p. 755). This brief mentioning of the “primal form” is quite interesting; Nietzsche is emphasizing the immateriality of human concepts. The language that humans have has nothing to do with the real world. When we refer to certain objects, such as a desk, or a living being, as small and “irrelevant” as a midge, we don’t realize that there is no way that we can know for certain that what one calls a desk is what another calls a desk. The analysis that interested me was the point that we have no idea if something as small as a midge is at the center of its world in its own eyes. We have no idea if the midge has its own language and has a different name for itself or for everything around it. So essentially, there is no way that language is the truth because there are so many different ways that language could be interpreted and the words that we have assigned to everything in the world aren’t for certain. Therefore, because our language isn’t the truth, it must be a lie.

Saussure essay, “Course in General Linguistics” works on studying and argues how language works and further show its varies characteristics. One of the first things he mentions is how problematic it is that we associate language as just a naming process. A reasons he disagrees, is by explaining how doing this, we are assuming that ideas already exist prior to the word used to name it (826). Such as, when the word “horse” is seen, there is already an idea of what a horse is. But that’s not necessarily true because the idea of a horse is complicated because everyone has a different thought of a horse. Some may not even understand what that animal even is, making it hard to even come up with a exact idea, even more, a name for it. This point is actually related to one of Nietzsche argument in his essay, “Truth and Lying in a Moral Sense”, in which he too disagrees with the naming system because it is just a matter of labeling things, minimizing them, to the point that it is taking a way any other value and identity the thing itself holds (754).

Rather than this, Saussure describes language in which a concept and a sounds image work together. He represents this in a chart which shows how concepts and sound images function with one another and how each, “are intimately united… [recalling] the other,” (827). In this case, the sound “horse” doesn’t have to specifically relate or tied down to a certain idea of a horse, but, can be more opened to represent a broader subject of it. It also allows that words aren’t important but rather the sounds of it which help create the concept we are thinking of. This way, it helps to understand language as a more psychological thing rather than something physical (writing) or vocal (speech). Saussure shows us that language then, becomes a process that occurs more so within our mind, as we are trying to decipher and comprehend these sound-images in relation to the concept and vice versa. Reading Saussure’s essay shows how complex it really is to say something we want to say or just wanting to write it down. Basically, our train of thoughts and thoughts are working to find ways to be connect it with the sounds we make in order to allow us to effectively communicate how we want to. The argument is very interesting because language is a very important for humans not just as a means of communication but it is our way of expressing ourselves.

In the article, “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense ” by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzche, he comments on the concept of human perception on life and truth. Nietzche believes that there is no such thing as a universal “truth”. He argues that human perception is absurd through critiquing the use of language and our forms of communication. For example, Nietzche states that humans “…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” (754). Basically, Nietzche is arguing that humans avoid actual truth and pure knowledge when it is not personally beneficial to them, which is contradictory to the idea of truth established by us humans. Nietzche makes a point here regarding the disconnect between language and the actual truth. More specifically, he leads to the point that the idea of “truth” is constantly altered by humans because they would only consider the “truth” to only be positive, or beneficial, thus stripping “truth” from its actual significance/definition.

Nietzsche further argues how human language fails to capture reality through the use of the midge as an example. The midge is a small fly that we, as humans, would consider insignificant. Nietzche describes humans to consider themselves to be “…the axis around which the entire world revolved” (752). This places the idea that humans consider themselves to be the center of reality, without even considering other organisms, such as the midge in this case, to be any more significant than themselves. However, Nietzche further points out that humans need to consider things from the point of view of the midge in order to understand that there are other realities besides their own. Overall, Nietzche points out that any living thing, from humans to the midge, considers itself to be the center of the universe. This means humans are selfish and can essentially cause the confusion of “truth” since we fail to consider the different perspectives that are essentially embedded into our reality.

I also want to point out that Nietzche made a very strong point about the insignificance of language in terms of truth. Nietzche states that “When different languages [are considered] alongside one another it becomes clear that, where words are concerned, what matters is never truth, never the full adequate expression; otherwise there would not be [any purpose of] so many languages” (754). Basically, this places language as an insignificance in terms of truth because language allows the free usage of words and expressions without any consequences. This causes humans to communicate however they want, again in terms of truth, because they can alter truth since there would be no consequences. This again can connect to his argument of the absurdity of human perception because our form of communication, which is language, allows for the constant reconstruction of truth.

Friedrich Nietzsche argues in his essay “On Truth and Lying in a Non-moral Sense” that truths are metaphors that we have learned to take literally. His main argument was that reality is falsified by what we consider to be truths.This is due to the fact that knowledge is limited to “appearances” that help us deal with reality by either hiding it from us or just disclosing specific details, whereas facts aim to depict things as they are in and of themselves. The desire to gain a greater understanding of something so basic can have a deeper underlying significance, as seen in the statement, (752) “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.” To have a better understanding of the standards that society has established and to assign labels to what is considered to be socially “acceptable.” Truth is best seen as correspondence, where the question of whether a belief is true or false simply boils down to whatever our best interests and applications of reason tell us is true. The burden of knowledge is that it makes us think we are significant, so we shape the environment to fit our version of reality. Instead of “truths,” we search for “forms,” imitations, labels, metaphors, and conceptions. We cannot see the real truth through the fog of words and analogies. According to Nietzsche, language was created as a social construct that allowed us to communicate. We made decisions about what was true and false based on what kept us safe. (753) “Deception, flattery, lying, cheating, speaking behind people’s backs, maintaining appearances—these are the pinnacles of humankind’s art of dissimulation.”

Metaphors distort the reality and create false impressions of the subjects of our discourse. They distance us even farther from the unchanging reality. Nowadays, we consider a “chair” to be an actual chair, but in reality, it is merely a metaphor for that item. (754) “What is a word? The copy of a nervous stimulation in sounds. To infer from the fact of the ner- vous stimulation that there exists a cause outside us is already the result of applying the principle of sufficient reason wrongly.” Language is a tool for communicating and understanding the world around us, but it cannot help us grasp the object itself. We’ve become oblivious to the fact that these metaphors are only poor copies of reality over time. Metaphors are repeated until we embrace them as the only true reality. 

In “Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense,” the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche describes how humans have constructed the idea of the “truth.” Humans have attached names and qualities to the world and the things around in relation to their own reality, without ever stopping to ponder the complexities and nuances of the things in the world that do not really have anything to do with reality as perceived by humans. For example, in the same manner in which humans position everything else in the world in relation to their own experiences and lived reality, a tiny midge thinks that it “contains within itself the flying centre of the world” (752). Humans therefore deceive themselves into believing that they have the answers to everything simply by taking the liberty of attaching meaning to the world around them even if have little idea of what actually goes on beyond their own limited lived experience.

Nietzsche mentions “the man of reason” and “the man of intuition” (761). The rational person lives by everything that they have been taught about the world. They do not think beyond what little they know, not taking risks, not pushing the limits of their knowledge. They do not bother to wonder about what exists beyond their limited understanding of the world. The intuitive person, by being closer to the true essence of the world around them instead of being trapped by the constructed social reality, is able to find newer meanings in life. However, because they do not follow strict rules and patterns in life, they are more prone to failures and disappointments: “When he is suffering he is just as unreasonable as he is when he is happy, he shouts out loudly and he knows no solace” (761). However, with because of their curiosity and hunger for true knowledge, they “[wield] [their] weapons more mightily and victoriously than [their] contrary” (761); with their creativity, they are able to experience deeper emotions and be more innovative than a person who does not step beyond what little they have been taught to learn, internalize, and adhere to.

I found Nietzsche’s argument about the rational person versus the intuitive person to be quite relatable. I love creative writing. I let my personal feelings guide and inform my poems. When I feel happiness or pain, I feel those emotions very intensely and this is something my creative friends can relate to. We refuse to accept the world as it is and yearn for more, much more. This desire for more brings us happiness but it can also be devastating at the same time. We long to know more, be more, do more and it crushes us because we are aware of our limitations but also energizes us because we choose to push those limitations.

Being intuitive, at the end of the day, is a blessing.

May we choose to push the limitations of what we are taught, what we internalize, what we learn.

“On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”  is a declarative and radical critique of language, truth, and identity. Nietzsche does what he does in all his texts and lambasts the preconceived notions we and other thinkers before him declared about the world. The main thing he is lambasting here is truth, specifically the idea that there is an objective truth and that language serves to conceal it. 

He positions human consciousness as only regarding itself, and that when we speak of truth we speak not of some universal principle or concept(ie. The Forms, The Thing In-Itself, God) but rather we speak solely for ourselves. He critiques not just these universal principles that Western philosophy is built upon, but likewise there is a critique of empirical truth, that is truth based on observation, as seen when he says:

 “ If I create the definition of a mammal and then, having inspected a camel, declare, ‘Behold, a mammal’, then a truth has certainly been brought to light, but it is of limited value, by which I mean that it is anthropomorphic through and through and contains not a single point which could be said to be ‘true in itself’… he strives for an understanding of the world as something which is similar in kind to humanity, and what he gains by his efforts is at best a feeling of assimilation”(Nietzsche 757).

 Even empirical study is still a means by which human consciousness imbues upon other entities in the world its own will. The majority of the text is centered around the purpose of language, which is not only to conceal truth but to stand in place of truth. As formulated language is the great power of the human mind, as language is the means by which we construct concepts and these concepts come to inform our very “essences” as beings. Nietzsche compares us to bees but declares us superior to them, as “the latter builds with wax which she gathers from nature, whereas the human being builds with far more delicate material of concepts which he must first manufacture from himself”. As stated quite explicitly by Nietzsche, we are precisely what we construct ourselves to be. Language to Nietzsche, therefore, constructs ourselves and reality, we are not free rational agents nor are we epistemically linked, rather what constitutes truth is the very desire to masquerade the void. When confronted with the world or lack thereof humans must do what they do best construct. 

Of truth Nietzsche says:

“What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected  to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation, and decoration, and which, after they have been in use for a long time, strike a people as firmly established, canonical, and binding; 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, coins which, having lost their stamp, are now regarded as metal and no longer as coins.”(Nietzsche 756 )

Nietzsche being Nietzsche, he towards the end of the essay formulates two types of men whom he refers to as; the man of intellect and the man of intuition. The man of intellect is the one by now we should’ve all become familiar with, he clings to his abstractions and “strives merely to be as free as possible of pain”. The man of intuition harkens to those of the ancient Greeks; he is careless and free of concepts, to the degree that he will suffer more acutely than the other man ever will. As he ends the essay, Nietzsche asks to perhaps see in ourselves these men.

Nietzsche begins his essay, “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”, where he talks about the universe. He says, “ There was once a planet on which clever animals invented cognition.” (752). He is making up a metaphor to describe the knowledge that animals know of. Nietzsche talks about mankind. He talks about nature and mankind’s intellect. People only want to be admired and act out of their own selfishness. They are constantly dreaming of achieving. Mankind create the laws of nature. Nature exists without the power of mankind’s inventions. Nature exists without labeling or language. It is mankind that creates language. Based on the essay, “ What is more, human beings allow themselves to be lied to in dreams every night of their lives, without their moral sense ever seeking to prevent this happening” ( 753). Human beings are driven by their thoughts and dreams. It is what people aspire to dream will be the result of their actions. Nietzsche quotes, “And, besides, what is the status of those

conventions of language? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, of the sense of truth? Is there a perfect match between things and their designations? Is language the full and adequate expression of all realities?”( 754).  Language is made between people. The deception that Nietzsche points towards is that a rock is a named a rock. However a rock itself does not know that it is called a rock. People invent language to label what is natural. Language is almost deceiving because it is based off a man made system. Humans often corrupt the system.With labels of people. For example someone could be rich and someone could be poor. Language makes this distinction. Humans are smarter than animals because humanity is built on inventions, corruption and language and human power. Humans control the world they are often seen almost like animals. People create fundamentals and empires are constructed from mankind’s power, handwork and physical labor. Ancient Romans built a system where people could live. Power played a great role in the advancement of mankind in Ancient Rome, because manual labor was needed to build all sorts of water systems, public buildings and a thriving community and most importantly a system where people could live. The system that built people is often unfair. Only a small percentage of people can enjoy luxuries while the majority of people often have to sacrifice themselves to have a the lifestyle they want. Humans create laws much like a system in which animals live in nature. Animals create their own habitats and create a hierarchy. Likewise people are similar to animals because they create systems as well.

According to Nietzsche the most evident effect of cognition, which is to say how we see the world, and of language is deception. He says that it’s a means of preservation because unlike other animals, we as humans “are denied horns or the sharp fangs of a beast of prey” (753) but unlike them we have the ability to think. We use this ability to help us stay ahead of other humans and we create tools, we build, we create, but we also lie, cheat, and deceive. This is where Nietzsche’s point comes from, he believes that we too often use language to deceive other people, whether it’s to appease others for personal gain, to hide the truth maliciously or to hide the truth to prevent pain, or to blend lies and truth to the point where both are one in the same. Since we do this so often and so much of it is ingrained into the language(s) that we use that, in his words, “there is virtually nothing which defies understanding so much as the fact that an honest and pure drive towards truth should ever have emerged in them.” (753) The reason why deception is so prevalent in language is because it’s effective, most people only look at the surface of things and as a result judge situations or perform certain actions based on those half-baked assumptions with that in mind how can one honestly say that they are seeking the truth or telling the truth when at best what they’re saying is only conjecture and at worse a dangerous lie that could harm other people. Not only that according to Nietzsche, lying is not even a problem, in fact we even endorse it on certain situations, but when a lie results in harm or pain, that’s when we take issue (754). For example, when you go to social media you see these people riding their expensive cars living in their million-dollar house showing of their thousand-dollar watch and come to find out that the house wasn’t theirs, the car they were using is rented, and they’re actually selling off their fancy watch because they can’t afford to pay their rent this month. They essentially were showing off to other people how successful they were and low and behold, they get praises for doing so because as we have already established, most people don’t really spend the time to look deeply into things so the only thing they see is this seemingly successful individual on their screen and they endorse them by commenting and liking theirs posts but in reality, is just an illusion. It’s a fake way of living and a lie that people promote and we, maybe not you or me, but we as a collective support these people even though what they’re promoting or advertising is in all intents and purposes a lie and a dangerous one at that.

In his philosophical essay, “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense,” Nietzche argues, provocatively for the time and even now, that at the basis of language and the pursuit of truth, there is an underlying element of lying that comes with every word we use. Whenever we speak or write about a topic, we expect other people to understand what we are talking about, because of our use of language. If everyone else in a room speaks the same language as we do, we expect them to know what we are talking about when we say “leaf” or “dog” or really any word, except for maybe more complicated words, like “sacrilegious,” which is a word I looked for the definition of after searching “complex words” on the internet. It is the use of language that connects human interaction. We are able to convey ideas, opinions, concepts, beliefs, and more, because of our ability to convey information through language. The fact that whoever you are, reading this, are able to interpret it is because of a language that connects us, Modern English. 

Nietzche explains the use of language in the pursuit of the truth as, “A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation, and decoration, and which, after they have been in use for a long time, strike a people as firmly established, canonical, and binding” (756). Basically, words only mean anything or something particular and specific, because we have all unilaterally agreed that a “leaf” is a leaf. Going back to what someone brought up in class, we can not be sure that a “leaf” is a leaf, because we cannot ask it. The fact that we call it “leaf” is a self-centered process that orders the thoughts of humans as most important. 

We all have names. Although we do not get to choose our names at first, once we gain autonomy, we can ask to be called something different, a grouping of letters and/or numbers that represent “us” more. We can even get our names legally changed, so that our important documents, like passports and IDs, have our proper identification. Everything that does not share our language (like inanimate objects, plants, animals, bacterias, etc.) do not have that ability. Against their will, they get a “name” based on whoever discovered them or invented them. For example, the bee, scaptia beyonceae was scientifically described and “named” based on the singer, Beyonce. These bees did not ask to be referred to that way, but humans still decided its “name” for it. 

Although, in essence, we will never know for sure if a “leaf” is a leaf or a “scaptia beyonceae” is a scaptia beyonceae, one cannot deny how important and useful language is. The fact that people are able to communicate, speak, write, and read are all thanks to the creation of language. Obviously, there are still many inadequacies to language, like the fact that there are so many, but it is a constructive and imperative part of what gets us through life. Nietzche expresses a similar sentiment in, “…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. In this he is to be much admired—but just not for his impulse to truth, to the pure cognition of things” (757). It’s kind of amazing how language is constructed and developed. It is essentially nothing but means everything when we understand it. You can read this blog post and others because of language. The books you have at home or at your nearest library make sense to you because of language. The words that come out of any person’s mouth can be interpreted, maybe not understood, by you because of language. It is an incredibly influential tool that benefits those who can make use of it.

In his piece, On Truth and Lying, Nietzsche is very concerned with the epistemological consequences of our perceptions of truth as humans. Through various analogies and metaphors, Nietzsche reaches the claim that “truths are illusions of which we have forgotten they are illusions”, and as a result, if humans should be valued for anything it should be for our architectural genius in creating a cohesive reality based on pure abstraction, but not for our genius in general, for we do not truly understand the essence of anything in world–we only interpret it based on our place in it (756). Ultimately, the perpetrator of our illusion is in language for taking the incommensurable, the individual, the unique, and assimilating it into sameness. The problem with this is what we lose through this process. When we use language we go through processes of metaphors that increasingly alienate us from the essence of something itself, and as time goes on all that remains is deception and lies. 

This is such a massive claim to make, and at first it seems that it can’t possibly apply to all our foundations and institutions. Surely, I thought, science is exempt from this judgment that “not a single point which could be said to be ‘true in itself’” actually is true? Science is supposed to have an objective methodology, a question we want to answer empirically, right? However, even science is so deeply rooted in an anthropocentric cause, where all of our answers are measured against ourselves, and subsequently categorized in our manufactured hierarchy. So, ironically, science is where we really see the process of how humans strive for an understanding of the world through assimilation, just as Nietzsche said we do with leaves, animals, and all other observable things (755). Even in science, we set parameters for what counts as truth–such as deciding what values of data results are/are not statistically significant–and again, we are in control of “truth” and perpetrating deception, even in the honest hearted pursuit of knowledge. 

Though I think Nietzsche does point out the importance of remaining humble since we really don’t know anything about anything, I also would like to make the argument that his philosophy, though insightful, does not serve much of a practical or tangible purpose. Nietzche is very focused on the structure of humankind, but only makes analogies at an individual level. At the end of his piece, he gives examples of two kinds of men, their values, beliefs, and life outcomes: the man of intuition and the man of reason. The man of intuition–though perhaps more aligned with Nietzsche’s love for the Ancient Greeks, rejection of a bland life, and seeks vitality and freedom from illusion–suffers unreasonably and painfully (761). On the other hand, the man of reason, who is guided by these illusions, is better apt to prevent himself from “falling into the very same trap time after time”, learns from his conception of experience, and is able to “ward off misfortune” (761). What would it be like to live in a world full of reasonable men? Or intuitive men? On a holistic level, I think it is much more efficient to have a community of people who at least agree on these self-imposed illusions and use of language, creating a framework through which we can move through our tasks and responsibilities without serious, larger roadblocks. Our disconnect from seeing a leaf as a leaf seems much smaller of an issue than a dysfunctional government and suffering citizens (whatever that term might mean) as a result of “falling into the same traps”. Nietszche’s point about language stripping us from the essence of things is really profound and seems to be true, but if we were to create a society where everyone pursues their own intuition, it seems that it would be an extremely fragmented and difficult place to live. Perhaps this illusion of reason is necessary for societies to function on larger scales.