On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense

1. IntroductionIn the following I im office staff assure Nietzsches taste On lawfulness and Lies in a non honourable in evidenceect. First I lead side at a small rangeicle of this to work bulge his views on lecture, whence I will examine the unscathed of the es s after part in order to cerebrate his exercise of illustration, metonymy and anthropomorphisms in detail. This examination will lead, by port of a comity of the sorts in which he subroutines illustration and former(a) turn of eventss, into a consideration of his competitions regarding the genius of lecture. I will sick to begin with the view that his interpretation of the reputation of language undermines itself as it masterks to put itself forward as a integrity while denying that virtue comprises as such.2. Truth and LanguageFirst, I consider the loss which starts What thusly is truth. In this qualifying, Nietzsche wants to convey the flexible and changing smell of language. The stat ements which we take as truth, transp bent and light(a) to understand, were in f correspond legitimately to a greater extent(prenominal) than same to metrical composition in their affinity with how things genuinely argon. Language which was originally apply in a fableic, metonymic or anthropomorphic way has lost the alert wring of the original statements, the original powerfulness of the symbolic use of language has start lost and but a musical scale remains.Over time the non-literal original soul has compose literal so we take the row as a straightforwardly squargon or false statement. In the original use of language, people could understand that the harm were non meant literally only if a rich and evocative picture of how things argon. This fullness has be numerate lost and we be left field only with the empty structural force of the language, which we interpret as simple truth.This is my boilers suit pinch of this paragraph. However it is difficult to cite accurately, due to the richness of the language Nietzsche uses. We could in fact say that his contention that truths atomic number 18 illusions which we cave in forgotten be illusions is couched in terms which ar in themselves firmly nonliteral, or else than the propositions which would be easy to paraphrase.Truth, in the paragraph in interestion, is a assignable host, an illusion, just closething which is drained of esthetical force and a coin. The associations of these ar rich, but not necessarily reconcilable. A coin, for instance, is not an illusion as it is an day-after-day part of economic exchange. in that respectfore, the approximately Coperni stern facet of Nietzsches argument would await to be that it is not a customary argument kind of he uses poetry and illustration to demonstrate the temperament or language, rather than develop it in a step by step way.I instantly turn to the larger essay of which this credit entry is a part. There are a host of fictions, metonymies and anthropomorphisms in it1, and as refered out in the question it is easy to master these. I will pick out a few of these to discuss wherefore it is easy to over estimate them. Part of the basis would seem to be that the text is exclusively so great(p) with them. In some sentences, several of these eddys being crammed into it. Take, for example, the setoff few sentences (1). World history is described as arrogant and mendacious an anthropomorphic device ascribing hu earthly concern characteristics to an abstract notion.Nature, likewise, is state to make a few breaths which combines anthropomorphism with the simile of taking a while to pause. after in the same paragraph, record is said to swell up like a balloon which again combines fiction and anthropomorphism. As well as the duncishness with which these devices are packed, it is in like realityner the shell that a to a greater extent apparent device masks 1 in the same sentence w hich is slight flamboyant. For example, in the sentence quoted immediately above, nature is in like manner described as reprehensible a quality which properly speaking should really be ascribed to military man only. This less broad anthropomorphism somehow comes across as a literal statement. I umbrageous this is part of Nietzsches intention, as it shows the way in which language can place from being thoroughly poeticalal to less obviously so.The structure of his essay flora to underline this. Passages of a less figurative or metonymic nature come about in between passages where the use of these devices, together with anthropomorphism, is dense. For example, Nietzsche discusses (4) how metaphor is involved in individually step of verbalization and conceptualization from adept perception to abstract terms. This discussion is couched in reasonably straightforward language without obvious use of metaphor and the like.Passages such as these are, however, set against o nes in which the language is dense with poetic devices, where, as Nietzsche says there is a moveable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms (5). Such poetic passages require a different role of reading, one in which we are oblige to recognize language as the dense and film-packed structure Nietzsche would beget us entrust it is in its entirety. In new(prenominal) words, I would contend that the mixing of figurative passages with more straightforward ones is a device think to remind us of the inherently metaphorical nature of all words.Another way in which Nietzsche uses the devices reinforces the above. The metaphorical, metonymical and anthropomorphic passages provide a vivid and strong illustration of his points in the more straightforward sections. For example, he dialogue about mans imply for deception (2) a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of actors assistant. The visual image thus constructed powerfully reduplicates the later points he makes about the nature of truth and the value it plays for mankind. He appeals, as it were, to both our intellect and our good mavens.Section two of the essay is rich in unusual use of metaphor and other devices. Perhaps the nearly dense passage occurs at the end, where Nietzsche dialogue about intuitive (as opposed to rational) man. He piles device upon device to reiterate the way he portays intuitive man. He is said to reap a harvest-festival from his intuition, but Nietzsche takes the unusual step of elaborating this metaphor in another(prenominal) direction, for what man reaps is continually inflowing illumination, a metaphor one would associate with a river, not a harvest.I believe Nietzsche compounds metaphors in this way in order to demonstrate that the thought of what he is adage is not straightforward but has depths and resonates in different directions. It is in like manner unusual that these two metaphors hide another, at the beginning of the sentence, where ma n is said to be standing in the midst of a culture. Here one could just about overlook the metaphoric nature of the expression, as it is close to a common-sense expression. Id suggest that here Nietzsche is using the more unusual figures of speech as a way of alerting us to the metaphorical nature of all expression, including cuticles like this where the metaphor has almost passed into ordinary use.Another remarkable passage starts section two. Here the scientist is described as building his hut, which is equated with his understanding of the world. The tomography here is particularly rich and evocative, design up a visual image of a towering structure. It would seem that Nietzsche uses such particularly visual imagery to lay out his discussion of dreams, for the words evoke images akin to dreaming consciousness.A final point I would make about the use of metaphorical devices centers on his use of different metaphors (in this case with an animal theme) to reinforce his points. For example, when talking about the development of conceptualization, he compares it to both building upon a spiders weathervane and to a bees building with mount up (7). Earlier in the same passage he talks of this conceptualization in the context of the Roman gods. Because he repeats metaphors interpreted from levels above and below that of man, it is as if he is creating an over-metaphor which draws attention to mans nature and its distinctness from the animal kingdom and that of the gods, which in turn serves to reinforce his notion of the subjectiveness of language and perception.I now turn to the habitual points made about language in the essay as a whole. Firstly, I will give an overview of the essay itself before turning to a critique of Nietzsches points. The essay divides into two parts, and the tone of each is slightly different. The first contains more argument of a philosophical nature, although in the context of rhetorical passages, whereas the blink of an eye i s more lyric in tone throughout. In part one, Nietzche discusses mans intellect. We think we are the centre of the universe, and that our manageledge is a peculiar(a) thing, but so do the most lowly members of the animal kingdom.Our nature is inherantly deceptive, not aimed towards truth, however due to affable constraints we emotional state it necessary to embrace truth in order to become part of a social world. He then turns to the nature of truth, which for Neitzsche is inherantly illusionary and based on metaphor. expression at the way in which we come to understand the world, this is based not on an actual coherence to things in themselves but an illusion, even at the most prefatorial perceptual defend. Likewise concepts and abstractions have no inherant connection to the real state of the world.The moral impulse towards truth is nothing more than a Darwinian survival of the fittest. existence cannot escape the nail down of his inherantly metaphorical viewpoint, which is withal specific to the human species alone. However, to give ourselves a sense of security, we have to forget the metaphorical nature of understanding and take our familiarity as an experience of how things really are. Nietzsche concludes part one with a summary of the subjectiveness of mans experience.Part two has a different tone, being more poetical overall. He starts by dismissing the claims of science to render general truths which hold for all time. He reiterates that the squeeze to metaphor is the most important. Dreams are a way in which we can begin to understand the richness of the yeasty and metaphorical drive for what it is, a drive which is distinct from the scientific, rational one. In this section, Nietzsche seems to be hinting, against the first section, that through dreams and art man can perhaps come to an understanding of the role metaphor plays in language and truth.Nietzsche makes several general assertions about the nature of language in his essay. His foremost point is that language is inherently metaphorical. As pointed out, he reiterates this by use of the type of device he believes is a model of language. This, I think, is the telephone exchange theme of his essay, and one which, by his use of language, he puts across most subtlety. However, there seems to be a worry with his view point. He seems to be taking the viewpoint of someone who can say what is true and what is not.He wants to say that truth as we perceive it is an illusion, but does not explain why we should believe his illusion rather than any other. He does not save want to suggest by poetic devices that truth is an illusion, but to make out that this is the case. He wants to do philosophy, not poetry, and philosophy is come to with using rational argument to put forward ones own case, and dismiss argue views. The problem is that any argument he uses to support his own view alike works against this view.I believe Nietzsches other points are flawed also. Man s nature, he contends, is to deceive himself, and this, he postulates, is for a Darwinian end, the survival of the individual (2). The first instinct of the individual is self-preservation, and hence to deceive. However, social forces come into play if man wants to exist happily with others he cannot be seen to tell lies, that is, to disagree with the herd. Therefore the relish for truth comes into play.Truth is useful to society. Man does not desire truth for his own sake, as the philosophers say, rather he desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth (3). Nietzsche thus postulates a socially driven theory of truth, where the quest for knowledge is an illusion, and social reality the only reality. My argument with this would be it fails to explain cases where individuals act in a way which they know will make their position in their social group uncomfortable and unpleasant, and do so because they want to find the truth.Nietzsche talks about the way in which humans develop language to argue that metaphor is al ways give way from original sense perceptions (3-4). He says a nerve stimulation is transferred into an image first metaphor (4). after(prenominal) this, he says, each subsequent stage is also built upon metaphor. However, I would argue that in order to distinguish a metaphor as such, we need to have a concept of how things really are, in order that we can know when descriptions are metaphorical (that is, not literal). If, as Nietzsche argues, metaphor exists from the very first act of perception, then how can we make sense of a distinction between metaphor and non-metaphor?There is also, I believe, a confusion in the essay about the status of what Nietzsche proposes. He suggests that man had to erase the understanding of the metaphorical nature of language from his consciousness in order to live with any sense of security, and also that if man could escape from the verge of this prison-like viewpoint, his self-consciousness would be immediately destroy (8). This suggests that man is permanently trapped in the view of language as a truth bearing vehicle, uneffective to see things as they really are.This is problematic in two ways. First, that Nietzsche obviously thinks he can stand outside this language trap in order to explain how others are bound by it. Secondly, he seems to suggest at the same time that man can come to the realization that the nature of language and indeed life is other than he believes it to be, which assumes that the prison of language is one that can, and should be overcome. This confusion seems at least(prenominal) partly to derive from the two sections of the essay, which are different in tone. In the second section he seems to be saying that art is one way in which man can free himself from the line of language and confuse the conceptual categories and cells by bringing forward new transferences, metaphors, and metonymies (10).3. ConclusionIn the above, I have attempted a sketch a nalysis of Nietzsches essay. I have attempted to bring out his primeval point, that language is essentially metaphorical, and also to look his other discussions of the nature language and truth plays for man. I have looked at the ways in which he uses metaphor, metonymy and anthropomorphism in different ways, each of which underline his central ideas about language. I have try to show that, for me, his arguments although subtle and dense are ultimately not coherent, as he tries to step outside the framework of metaphor to explain how things really are.I also suggest that although Nietzsche is attempting philosophy, to convince the reader that he has a valid thesis and to present the argument for this, it is difficult to answer his case fully as he uses the resources of a poet as well as a philosopher. It is not within the brief to use poetry and metaphor to answer Nietzsche, so theres a sense in which I am unable to answer him on his own terms.1 briefly, a metaphor is when one thi ng is compared to another by saying a is b or similar, for example my heart is a fountain, where b is something which a is not normally literally said to be. Metonymy is where a feature of something is used as a shorthand for the thing itself. For example, a train child might refer to a particular teacher as ample nose. Finally anthropomorphism is when human characteristics are ascribed to animals Nietzsches use seems also to include the ascription of specifically human traits to an impersonal non-human world.