“On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”

A brief moment in this piece that stood out to me as Nietzche argued about the idea that language is a lie and provides an example of a poor man saying “I am rich” (p. 766) clearly stated with the intent to introduce deception in the simplest way. However, one cannot simply tell whether or not the person is lying because of the context of the word “rich,” which can mean more things than one, something Nietzsche does not consider. Perhaps if he defined what makes something or someone rich, it would be better understood as to why the speaker of the statement would be considered a liar. Webster’s dictionary would define it as as an abundance of something, meaning Nietzche’s unstated assumption is that the poor man was on the topic of money. How else can the poor man be rich, aside from that? Culture? Love? Respect? Humility? For the above reason I would have to disagree with Nietzsche. Though lies can be created by language, the existence of it depends on our ability to describe. To me, language is a point of discovery.

As he mentioned in the literary work, language is like pocket change when it is no longer innovative and invented. However, I like to think that language is a form of art; it is something that is constantly changing according to the times we live in. We can see this in the way that spelling of words have changed over time – like “colour” to “color”. We can also see this in artistic works – novels, poetry, etc. We rely on artists to create new ways for us to imagine and so they bring to language words that would not exist. We can see things that aren’t really there through language. In this way, we able to have an image of things like mermaids and dragons. An artist’s an ability to arrange words creatively by rejecting certain literary rules and accepting unconventional rules allow others to explore the ways in which we can communicate. All the while, context and contact are always important.

I mention the above to agree that language is a simple invention. However, he forgets to mention the truths in language, the practicality and the functions are somewhat ignored. Language is not simply the way we communicate as humans. Animals have their own languages by sounds and gestures in the same ways we do. Whether it’d be through gestures, facial expressions, words, sounds, language is every way to provide a message. We humans have a strong liking for artfully creating a word to attach to a specific meaning, to refer to one specific thing. Through writing, either informative or as an art, there is a voice of personality and there is subjectivity. This can be witnessed by museum and/or exhibit display. We agree with what is written as a description of a piece and believe that it is true because museums have credibility. In sum, it is not language in general that is a lie, it is speech.

In Nietzsche’s essay, he examines the characteristics of a truth and a lie. He says “The stone is hard’, as if ‘hard’ were something known to us in some other way and not merely as an entirely subjective stimulus?”. Nietzsche tells us that humans use metaphors to put experience in a type of order in an attempt to make an overall understanding. Humans get a definition of “hard” from experiencing it in their life. We then use the word hard to describe our experience in relation to the rock. Nietzsche argues that even though we put these experiences into metaphors, it doesn’t capture each experience we have at different times.

Nietzsche also argues that a simply concept of looking at a leaf is overall grouped into one experience instead of a different one in each encounter. Every leaf isn’t the same but for us a humans to understand each other we come to the same truth that a leaf is a leaf and they don’t differ.

“There is nothing so reprehensible and unimportant in nature that it would not immediately swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff of this power of knowing.”

The gnat and humans are both within the center of the universe; however it is not the same universe. What I mean by this is, yes, they both share the same physical universe but both have their own individual mental universe. They both have this perception that the universe revolves around them solely.  (The physical universe has it own center). Nietzsche is saying that if a gnat were to gain the power of knowing then it’s universe it’s perception it’s very existence, it would become prideful. it would become hubris in it’s nature of believing that the universe does revolve around it. So, too with humans. Humans with every achievement every step forward  they want to be admired they want to continually stand at what they believe to be the center of the universe because that is what they want. They want everything to be about them, just them.

(Lost my thought….sorry)

You may want to “follow” our blog via email to receive updates when there’s a new post.  If you do, click on the menu icon at the top of our blog:

And then scroll down to enter your email address and click FOLLOW.

Second, you may want to associate an image (selfie or any image you think captures you in some way) with your username for your posts/comments.  This is called a “gravatar” and it’s very easy to set one up.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, we professors tend to tweak the syllabus as we go, so nothing is in stone here, but the syllabus is more or less set.  Also note that there are student posts below.  These are the work of prior students, and I’ve decided to keep them up in case anyone is interested in what your peers had to say about the readings in the past; they give a good flavor of the course if you’re interested in browsing.

I know this is rather old material, but during our discussion about Gramsci, I managed to scrawl down a theory I came up with about the development of attitudes toward traditional intellectuals that I’d like to share (not sure anyone will read it at this point, though).

Just to rehash: In “The Formation of the Intellectuals”, Gramsci breaks down what it means to be an intellectual as well as the two categories of intellectuals and their roles in society. Gramsci theorizes that the two “types” of intellectuals are traditional intellectuals and organic intellectuals. Traditional intellectuals are the easiest to pinpoint, in that they tend to be the only people we consider “real” intellectuals on a superficial level (that is, before reading Gramsci). According to Gramsci, these traditional intellectuals are scientists, philosophers, educators, doctors, clergymen, judges, etc. Traditional intellectuals are those who work primarily with their minds and regard themselves as autonomous and above the dominant social group (the “ignorant masses”, I guess one could say). They’re also considered transhistorical, in that they persist in spite of social upheaval. The less obvious of the two types of intellectuals are what Gramsci calls the organic intellectuals. These intellectuals are bound to class and have a direct relationship to production, and are thus embedded in the work structure. As Gramsci states, “These organic intellectuals would come from within the working class and stay within the working class working towards a counter-hegemony by actively engaging and leading in social relations”. They can be the intellectuals who work with their hands, like manual labourers or mechanics, but can also include union leaders amongst others who could be mistaken for traditional intellectuals. Although some may mistake organic intellectuals as being lowly or subservient to traditional intellectuals, they are often counter-hegemonic and responsible for social change.

What I really want to talk about in this blog post is a tangent I went on during the class discussion on this text. When we were discussing traditional intellectuals, I had this thought about exactly why traditional intellectuals are seen as more intellectual than organic intellectuals or those intellectuals who are more directly physically involved in their work (but all intellectual activity requires some physical interaction, really). I scrawled the following on the subject:

“-Viewed higher– work more w/ mind (intellect) as opposed to the physical realm, which is associated with lowliness + servitude. What is traditionally seen as the intellectual realm transcends the physical, moving toward the spiritual. (Is this at all rooted in religion, and the denial of the body and glorification of the mental/spiritual? [think purity, denial of the physical body and “lusts of the flesh”]).

“Resistance/denial of physicality/physical desires (almost moving toward asceticism), elevation of the intellectual and therefore the intangible (thoughts). Is this why society and ideology instructs us to value those who primarily work with their minds (traditional intellectuals) over those who work with their hands?”

I’d like to map this out more clearly eventually, probably over the break, but I think I might be onto something…