The essay by Nietzsche that strike me was on how he descibers Humanity with it being an architectural geniuses.  ¨On Truth And Lying In A Nonmoral Sense”. By mankind where Nietzsche describes it in pg.(757) I ̈admire humanity as a mighty architectural genius ̈.  Humans are architectural geniuses because of the Capacity and what it implies of their foundations and their views. For how it is and its nature human builds and how its created ¨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 build with the far more delicate material  of concepts which he must first manufacture from himself ̈(pg.757). Where it is looked up to and how truth becomes to be ¨prue¨ and ¨cognition¨ and for what it’s being known and for Metamorphosis in humankind in order to have a better understand of both humanity and the truths of the world and the things that are around them and understand of it. Another part of Nietzsche ‘s essay that was interesting on two types of humanities happiness and suffering do to the world and how humankind sounds and the copy that it has is an image that is made of humanity where how he thinks about humanity on how”humanity as a consequence of the same occasion, it finally acquires the same significance for all human beings, as if it were the only necessary image and as if that relation of the original nervous stimulus to the image”(pg.758). Where it seems that images have to do with dreams and then it will be repeated to where it will be proven and the Metaphor to show “the same way as a dream, if repeated eternally, would be felt and judged entirely as reality. But the fact that a metaphor becomes hard and rigid is absolutely no guarantee of the necessity and exclusive justification of that metaphor”(pg.758). 

In the commentary article, On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzche argues about the absurdity of our perspectives regarding life and truth. He argues this said absurdity through critiquing our usage of daily language to communicate. Nietzsche’s point of view focuses on how the concept of language is entirely fabricated by us and we as a society very often fail to consider and question this said fabrication. He states, “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). He makes a point here regarding the disconnect between language and the actual reality. More specifically, how language serves to limit the true reality. 

Nietzsche further builds his point on how language has failed to capture true reality through the example of a midge, a small fly that as humans we would often consider irrelevant and insignificant. Humans, as he describes, consider themselves to be, “…the axis around which the entire world revolved” (752). However in the article, Nietzche urges us to look at the world through the eyes of the midge itself. By doing so, we are transported in a reality unlike anything else in our current world. From Nietzche’s understanding, any living thing, from humans to the life of a tiny midge considers itself to be the center of the universe. In that sense, we could argue that humans are inherently selfish and confused as we fail to consider the different perspectives that are ultimately embedded in our reality. 

To Nietzche, human beings’ usage of science and objective truth, especially in the industrial time of when this writing was published, had made our lives rigid and colorless. He urges readers to prioritize creativity and subjectivity. Only then, can we come to understand the many different vibrant truths we exist in this world. 

I find myself agreeing with Nietzsche and his point of view. In our modern capitalistic and industrial lives, our routine 9-5 school and work life has taken out the essence of subjectivity and creativity. Especially within the academic circle, I’ve often found people to prioritize the STEM concentrations more than the humanities or the arts. The value of the humanities and arts have come to decrease in our society. Science is held as the gospel truth despite the fact that even within such an objective field, new discoveries make it that even science is always changing to some degree. Thus, ultimately I advocate for Nietzche’s perspective on the dismay of truth and objectivity.

          In “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”, Friedrich Nietzsche believes that we, a people and a society, have this inherited understanding that we “it”. “It” refers to the idea that we are the best of the best in our ecological sphere. Nietzche possesses the idea that almost anything believes that is “it” and in their sphere of thinking and beliefs they are “it”. We as people fail to understand that the other living things that we interact with have their ways of life and thinking.

         With the use of the midge, a small fly, we see that size isn’t indicative of importance. We a society think that we are better than the Midge in either size, thought, or psychical capabilities so, we place our importance higher up than a midge on the totem pole of life. According to Nietzche’s philosophy, anything living believes that they are the center of their universe. “But if we could communicate with a midge we would hear that it too floats through the air with the very same pathos, feeling that it too contains within itself the flying centre of this world” (Page 752). Nietzsche in this quote also draws importance to the role that language and communication play in determining something’s importance. 

          Our understanding of language in conjunction with our interpretation of language is centralized to where we are here in the U.S. We primarily communicate in English while those in Spain primarily communicate in Spanish. If we can not understand or interpret what someone is saying or trying to communicate with us we consider them to be less than us, this is true, especially with animals, the midge. Animals, by nature’s design, have their way of communicating with each other, which some believe to be more advanced, as they don’t utilize conventional forms of speech to communicate with each other.  The idea of our perceived form of language of communication Nietzche notes is truly meaningless, “What do human beings know about themselves? Are they even capable of perceiving themselves in their entirety just once, stretched out as in an illuminated glass case?” (Page 753). The importance that we place in understanding the world around us lures us into a false sense of security as Nietzsche believes that everything we construct is flawed as we fail to truly understand ourselves.

In his critical essay, “On Truth & Lying In a Non-Moral Sense”, philosopher Frederich Nietzsche critiques the contemporary agreements of what qualifies as truth. Nietzsche begins the essay by examining the evolution of humanity’s knowledge, ultimately establishing that it is pointless and that there is no equitable universal truth. He raises the question, “What then is truth?” (pg. 756). His answer is: “A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins” (pg. 756). According to Nietzsche, truth is just another metaphor invented by human activities, or “anthropomorphisms”, rather than something literal. Although humans have invented the concept of truth, they have forgotten that it is only an “illusion” that was created solely to help humans assign meaning to the world around them. These perceived truths have also undergone a series of changes as humans have developed intellectually throughout history, and have moved humans further away from the objective truth. They have been heavily extended, or “embellished poetically and rhetorically”, as humans have discovered more about the world around them, but Nietzsche claims that this does not make them any more viable, and instead turns them into “metaphors which are worn out”. To summarize, Nietzsche defines truth as simply a socially constructed illusion.

While Nietzsche does raise some strong points regarding the social construction and embellishing of truth, it can be argued that not all truth is inherently incorrect. This can be true in cases of conclusions that have been drawn through years of research and testing in fields such as science. Similar to an experiment, a truth had to start as a hypothesis, and then go through a series of tests to eventually be declared a truth. Truths have also been derived from pure trial and error of the human experience. Humanity has developed immensely since the nineteenth century, so it is easy to declare that Nietzsche’s reasoning is a bit outdated. However, despite his argument having its flaws, Nietzsche offers excellent insight into the never-ending question of how human beings search for meaning in the world.

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 are free to create your own Commons name/avatar as you please, so you can use a pseudonym if you like; and b) you are free to delete your posts at the end of class.  If anyone has serious reservations despite all this, feel free to contact me.
3. Blogging is sturdy: rather than forget the piece of paper once it’s been handed back, we can link back to prior statements or observations, or to each others’. If you like, you can leave your posts up for future 306ers to see.
4. Blogging is responsive: rather than only getting comments from me, you’ll comment on and get comments on each other’s work.

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

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

Here’s a simple rubric, adapted from Mark Sample, that gives some sense of what I’m looking for. Since we’re using contract grading, anything in the A-B range below is “satisfactory” for contract purposes.

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

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

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

Just a quick welcome to new students for the Spring 2024 term. You’ll find a ton of old material from past versions of the course if you scroll down, but here begins our work for this term! I look forward to meeting/seeing you later this month. Enjoy a happy/healthy New Year and break in the meantime.