As humans, we often pride ourselves (and our philosophers) on sophistication of thought. Nietzsche argues that we tell ourselves that we search for the truth, that honesty is what is most important. However, he says, is this really correct? Humans often favor deception over truth. Sure, we cringe when the witness in a trashy courtroom drama lies to hurt the innocent defendant, but we lie ourselves when we tell our friend with horrible taste that we like their new boots.

Nietzsche revises this belief in honesty with a qualifier; we only like the truth when it is practical to us. Truth is convenient in a courtroom. It allows the innocent to go unpunished and the guilty to suffer. However, deception, as much as society seems to abhor it, allows us to keep our friends with ugly boots. Sometimes we like deception, and sometimes we like truth. It is the circumstance that decides which we will choose. Our philosopher, however, seems to look down upon this, stating that humans are “actually hostile towards truths which may be harmful or destructive”. This seems to be an indication that this hostility towards “destructive” truth is surprising, but is it? It is true that we deceive ourselves into thinking honesty is our ultimate goal, but isn’t the occasional white lie more helpful than harmful?

What is truth, anyway, and how do we get at it? Nietzsche discusses this using the idea of concepts, which he defines as “making equivalent that which is non-equivalent”(767). His example, a leaf, shows how this is possible. There are no leaves that are exactly alike; they are a product of different DNA, they come in different shapes, colors, and sizes. However, somehow, humans have developed the idea of what a leaf is, and have classified a set of objects as leaves. Quite akin to Plato’s idea of forms, humans have set a criterion for classifying all objects, imagining that there exists an essence for leaves, trees, water, folders, and an endless list of items.

Nietzsche tears away at this idea of objective classification completely. Truth may not be what humans have fabricated. Sure, I could say the chair that I’m sitting on right now is a chair, and say that that statement is true. But the chair is only a chair because society has come up with the concept of a chair for sitting, and then manufactured and marketed it to me as a chair for sitting. Really, the statement that a chair is a chair because it’s a chair is not so much true as it is circular.

However, if humans cannot conceive of truth, who, or what, can? Nietzsche states that this can only come about by some “non-existent criterion”(770). Only a being that could consider all perspectives could judge what truth is, and humans are not capable of it. Every object or being we observe is subjected to the limited senses we can use to observe them, and it is unclear whether or not these senses are enough to communicate their essences to us.

Is this type of thinking even practical, though? At the end of the essay, Nietzsche makes a distinction between those who live by the concepts that society has constructed, and those who refuse to take those concepts as “truth”. The former are able to function well throughout daily life; they take note of patterns and have control of their environments because their minds have mastered the world and classified the objects within it. However, these people live in a prison of their own making, seeing limits and distinctions where they may not actually exist. Those who rebel against these constructions have the opposite problem. They stumble through daily life because they do “not know how to learn from experience”(773), and are unable to mentally control their environment. Every object is an endless possibility due to their refusal to conceptualize the world around them. However, they enjoy a greater intellectual experience, and have no bounds, which makes the world infinitely more colorful.

My wonder is this: Is it better to function and live in the conceptualized, classified world? Seeing as most people exist in this more limited intellectual domain, it may be more practical to accept the “truths” that society has placed upon us. We cannot escape the world we perceive, even if it lacks objectivity. Nietzsche’s contemplation of real truth is a profound and humbling idea, but I find its pragmatism questionable.

In Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense” one of the more interesting aspects I gravitate towards is his idea of humans and their relationship to vanity or rather certain “illusions and dream-images” (765). This in relation to what Nietzsche has come to define truth as, to him, has no overlap or intersection. Because humans rely so much in these vanities and illusions it bars them from looking deep enough into anything to see the real truth. With these aspects of human nature then comes the individuals need to watch out for oneself and in doing so societies are created by ways of establishing peace: “In the wake of this peace treaty, however comes something which looks like the first step toward, the acquisition of the mysterious drive for truth” (766). With this beginning of governance and establishment of peace, he goes onto explain, is when the true distinction between truth and lies comes into existence.

One of the main, and more important, points of this text is this fact that truth and lies are both manmade, especially in terms of human language. Can a lie be a lie if it is not spoken to another individual? Truths then are illusions that the human mind and overall existence has come to understand and accept as truth but in reality is just metaphor, the goal to be truthful is driven by the conformity of society to accept truth as moral and therefore as what one should aspire to follow. This leads us to Nietzsche’s idea of concepts and how concepts in relation to words is important. A great example he gives is that of a leaf, everybody knows that no leaf is exactly the same (snowflakes could work for this example as well) but when one drops these individual differences when speaking of the concept of leaves. “… 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 exist in nature…” (767). This idea in turn applies to this concept of honesty, Nietzsche explains that when one speaks of these concepts one essentially creates the meaning or “essential quality” (767) of the concept and therefore when one speaks of honesty there is no overarching definition or exact individual meaning of it, such as with leaves.

My overall understanding of this text feels a bit shaky but Nietzsche’s idea of concepts as well as his explanation of human beings as creatures that gravitate towards vanity and therefore in their way gravitate towards truth stood out to me the most. His example of the leaf being a concept but not an explanation of an individual object was enlightening to his bigger point in terms of the interaction between humans and what we call honesty.

I must be honest— I am not confident in my interpretation of this piece but I tried my best to express my thoughts as coherently as possible.

Nietzsche (N) believes humanity is arrogant and that we think very highly of our own intelligence and place in the universe. He insists that our intelligence is used for “dissimulation”. The truth merely equals lies. Why? Because language is metaphor. People use language to understand and communicate thoughts and ideas about reality. It is, in a way, a creative, artistic process. (I suppose that’s why we call deception “the art of lying”). We never have raw access or “truth” to anything. We only have our representations in the form of linguistic metaphor. I may be wrong, but I believe N is saying we are lying (whether intentionally or not, realized or not) when we use language to represent a thing or thought because it is impossible to perceive everything correctly.

The very idea that we have of “reality” is an illusion. All language and experience is metaphor. When a metaphor sticks around long enough and is repeated by enough people, we forget that it is metaphor and thus it morphs into this idea of the “truth”. In actuality, truth is an old metaphor, we’ve just forgotten it is a metaphor.

N speaks about concepts and states that concepts are “lingering residues of metaphors”. The use of a concept is to lump different things together and treat them as the same (I hope that makes sense? I wasn’t sure how to word my thought). There are no real concepts in nature. Concepts come from humans. We maintain this really arrogant delusion that nature is patterned according to our concepts. Our little interpretations could never explain the entire workings of reality but we still try. We especially try to do this with science. We use science to attempt to fit everything into an orderly tower of concepts but the attempt is futile because reality is not and cannot be orderly— it is chaos.

I felt quite anxious as I read this piece because I do not like to think this deeply about existence and reality. I find it scary and unpleasant. However, I did find the example of the mosquito comical (albeit depressing) because it is very true. N says:

“But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world. There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge; and just as every porter wants an admirer, the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees on the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts”.

We believe we have control over ourselves and our own individual realities but we control nothing. The universe is uncaring and unforgiving. 

Nietzsche explains how humankind has developed our own truths and lies. As humans, it is natural to think that we say takes precedence over other people’s thoughts. Humans create truths that may be contrary to what is actually reality. Truths and lies are manmade and subjective.

In my opinion, Nietzsche makes a very accurate depiction of humans saying that we are ” artistically creating subjects” because we are able to take an outside stimulus whether it would be an image, smell, or sound and make a metaphorical image in our minds of what the object is by assigning characteristics to it. Coincidentally, we see prime examples of how humans attach characteristics to other stimuli in the environment we are in now. The political environment of today’s age unfortunately sees the human race applying certain generalizing metaphors towards other people such as minorities in society. Humans lean towards subjective thinking instead of objective thinking because it is easier to think in a subjective manner. This sort of thinking does not challenge the mind and does not take everything into consideration. Humans are becoming less independent thinkers as time goes on. Infants are born with no perception of the world and not knowing the difference between truth and lies. As they grow older, parents teach their kids to think the way they were taught. As a result, the children will think that everything their parents say is correct. Nietzsche suggests that there is an increasing stubbornness in the human race and an increasing need to be selfish and only focus on the needs of themselves.

For example, Earth has been around for billions of years and the human race has been around for a short period of those billion years. Other organisms lived here before us and humans took it over and now live in a manmade society. We are not at one with nature and Nietzsche finds that a problem. All truths and “lies” are manmade in the society that we live in and there are no languages, concepts, and truths that exist only in nature. I get the sense that Nietzsche encourages a well- rounded, thought out understanding of what we interpret as truth and lies. Before passing judgment or proclaiming something as true, there must be a careful examination of the stimuli and the judgement can not be based on preconceived notions.

Nietzsche’s views contrast direct with Plato who says that the ideal within our own minds is often at the highest level of reality. Nietzsche is basically saying that humans have created their own truths and they do not coincide with the actual truth of the universe.

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.