Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast style essay
College level comparative essay
Compare and contrast style essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
An Analysis of Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense
Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense represents a deconstruction of the modern epistemological project. Instead of seeking for truth, he suggests that the ultimate truth is that we have to live without such truth, and without a sense of longing for that truth. This revolutionary work of his is divided into two main sections. The first part deals with the question on what is truth? Here he discusses the implication of language to our acquisition of knowledge. The second part deals with the dual nature of man, i.e. the rational and the intuitive. He establishes that neither rational nor intuitive man is ever successful in their pursuit of knowledge due to our illusion of truth. Therefore, Nietzsche concludes that all we can claim to know are interpretations of truth and not truth itself.
Analysis
In the first part of his work, Nietzsche asserts that: “The pride connected with knowing and sensing lies like a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, thus deceiving them concerning the value of existence” (Nietzsche 451-452). Here, it seems that Nietzsche is trying to reject any empirical sense of gaining knowledge. For example, I know that I am sitting on a wooden chair because I can see the chair, feel the texture of the wood, touch it, and even smell the aroma of it. But Nietzsche argues that we only perceive the surface of things, and our “senses nowhere lead to the truth" (Nietzsche 452). This is what Nietzsche meant by using the analogy of our senses being like a “blinding fog over the eyes” and thus deceiving us on our knowledge about things. But how do we know what is true from what is false? What is truth as opposed to lies?
Her...
... middle of paper ...
... something when it fact, we never ask ourselves why we know it. We tend to take for granted what counts the most in this world, that is, knowing ourselves. Human beings think that knowledge of things will lead them to enlightenment. But in reality, it is nothing but an illusion made by man himself to create a kind of path towards success. Those who follow this path will get nowhere close to success, rather, they bring upon suffering along the way, pulling us farther from ourselves. Thus, if only we were aware of this deceptive nature of language and metaphor to that of knowledge, we would come to understand that truth indeed is nothing but a man-made word and is therefore a mere figment of our imagination. The facts do not count, only our interpretations of them. So it seems that Reality then isn’t so far from our dreams, perhaps it’s really the other way around.
...no way implies that Nietzsche is presenting the ideas of the Genealogy in bad faith; he certainly believes that they have some truth to them-but perhaps not to the extent that they are definitive. Thus, it is possible that Nietzsche, in writing his polemic, has other goals than the mere straightforward elucidation of a philosophical system. If this view is adopted, many of Nietzsche’s radical notions and unsupported assertions become easier to stomach. Of course, such a softening of the impact of Nietzsche’s claims may destroy the fundamental mind-opening project that lies at the heart of the book, since the shock of encountering such views is clearly essential to that project.
Nietzsche believes that the way intellect works is to deceive people. They naturally play that role in order to keep a secret or to restrict sharing information with another person. In other words he means people lie in order to not share the agreed upon lie. He says, “…individuals so far wants to maintain himself against other individuals, he will under
In the Allegory of the cave, Plato stated "what he had seen before was a cheat and an illusion, but that now, being near to reality and turned toward more real things, he saw more truley." It appeals to me because he's basically inferring what if what we are seeing or what we believe are just our figments of our imagination. A lie that we dwell on, because we are blinded from the truth. Plato statement is something we can all relate. For instance children from our younger years our parents disguise parts of reality to prevent them to live a life of fear. Fear of evil and fear from being hurt. But we as grow older we learn, that there is hate and evil in the world. We learn that not every corner has a rainbow glistening in the sky. And for that
The philosophy of Tae Kwon Do is to build a more peaceful world. To accomplish this goal Tae Kwon Do begins with the foundation, the individual. The Art strives to develop the character, personality, and positive moral and ethical traits in each practitioner. It is upon this "foundation" of individuals possessing positive attitudes and characteristics that the "end goal" may be achieved.
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals can be assessed in regards to the three essays that it is broken up into. Each essay derives the significance of our moral concepts by observing
The central point of this essay is this “truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions.” (Pg. 146) He also goes on to say that the truth is a metaphor, using the Latin meanings of metaphor, meta (to carry with) and phora (to carry over), we can say that a metaphor is a transference between two completely different spheres. It is all about reasons, concepts, and perceptions. What we consider or believe to be the truth is simply a subject realm of experience, completely different from reality. For example, colors, if we were to believe and go by what Nietzsche is saying, colors are not absolute truths just illusions that we have created in our relative reality. So nothing is actually blue, and to take it a step further blue is not real, both perceptions are illusions that we have made
When Nietzsche claims that God is dead he is not making an empirical claim about God’s existence, nor even merely about the state of belief in his existence. His claim is that the conceptual relationship between God and the ‘Truth’ fundamentally changed with the Enlightenment. Previously ‘Truth’ was understood via its relationship with God; Nietzsche argues that:
Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 26 August 2004.
On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, Nietzsche. United States of America: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2001. 1171-1179. Print
For many years humans have pursued the meaning of truth, knowledge and understanding. For many this pursuit of understanding the meaning of truth doesn’t end until one finds a “truth” that is nourishing to them. Even if this is the case one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be more satisfactory to them. This pursuit of truth does not always have to follow the same path as there may be different ideas for everyone on how truth is actually obtained and which is a better way to obtain the truth is. Two philosophers of their time, Plato and Charles Peirce had their own methodologies and ideas on how truth and knowledge could be obtained.
Nietzsche says that when we talk about leaves we say “leaf” but no leaf is the same as another leaf and leaves do not follow an original form but instead are all different. We are using one word to describe many different things. I say to him that we are using this word to generalize the leaves instead of calling an individual leaf a different word. As we continue with the concept of leaves the words get more specific through types of leaves. We are not saying that there is an original form that all the other leaves got wrong and therefore leaf is incorrect we are using it so that we can describe leaf as a general idea using their similarities. After talking about leaves, though, Nietzsche talks about the concept of honesty and how we use a vague idea to convey someone who is not lying at that moment or lies on rare occasion. I answer him saying honesty is understood by humans in general as a person that is telling the truth most of the time and makes sure if they are lying it is on something that isn’t a grave matter. This is because humans are imperfect so they are unable to be perfectly honest therefore making honesty somewhat vague but known well within society. This is all explained well in the first act of the intellect, simple apprehension. In simple apprehension, we understand that we can use a broader statement to explain a general idea such as saying genus which is a broader classification of animal
Friedrich Nietzsche was a critic and a German Philosopher from the 18th century. Nietzsche was the father of psychoanalysis and he formulated several philosophical concepts that have greatly contributed to the understanding of human nature. Nietzsche ideas had been misinterpreted by many people over time specifically, due to his style of writing. Nietzsche style of writing was adopted to strengthen his arguments on various controversial topics. In this paper, I will discuss Nietzsche’s idea of naturalistic morality, master morality, self-mastery morality, and how they connect with the affirmation of nature and strength.
“There are no truths,” states one. “Well, if so, then is your statement true?” asks another. This statement and following question go a long way in demonstrating the crucial problem that any investigator of Nietzsche’s conceptions of perspectivism and truth encounters. How can one who believes that one’s conception of truth depends on the perspective from which one writes (as Nietzsche seems to believe) also posit anything resembling a universal truth (as Nietzsche seems to present the will to power, eternal recurrence, and the Übermensch)? Given this idea that there is no truth outside of a perspective, a transcendent truth, how can a philosopher make any claims at all which are valid outside his personal perspective? This is the question that Maudemarie Clark declares Nietzsche commentators from Heidegger and Kaufmann to Derrida and even herself have been trying to answer. The sheer amount of material that has been written and continues to be written on this conundrum demonstrates that this question will not be satisfactorily resolved here, but I will try to show that a resolution can be found. And this resolution need not sacrifice Nietzsche’s idea of perspectivism for finding some “truth” in his philosophy, or vice versa. One, however, ought to look at Nietzsche’s philosophical “truths” not in a metaphysical manner but as, when taken collectively, the best way to live one’s life in the absence of an absolute truth.
“There are no facts, only interpretations”, said famous French philologist Friedrich Nietzsche on the topic of deconstruction. It is this quote that we are opened into the world of deconstruction, a world where “language doesn’t reflect or convey our world but constitutes a world of its own”. Deconstructionists believe that language is the barrier that forces thoughts to lose their purpose. The moment you share an idea from the inner workings of your mind, whether it be written or spoken, is the moment the idea is lost in translation. In order to understand deconstruction, one mu...
To illustrate how knowledge is acquired in the process, Plato cites the example of one of the prisoners being set free and leaving the cave toward the light (Plato 229). Plato goes on to add that the release to freedom would not be a happy occasion but rather that to the freed prisoner “all the movements would be painful and he would be too dazzled to make out the objects whose shadows he had been used to see” (Plato 229). At this juncture, Plato is implying that the confrontation and separation of the truth from illusion is a painful encounter. Because the prisoner has been used to shadows as the truth, it takes a lot of distress for him to now comprehend the reality that underlies the shadows he is accustomed to seeing. Plato adds that if the prisoner were forced to look at the firelight by himself, his eyes would probably ache (Plato 229). Plato is implying that the process of knowing the truth and becoming enlightened challenging and requires effort on the part of the individual to face the realities. In other words, facing realities and acquiring knowledge is not an easy task, but instead a process that requires the commitment and perseverance of the person. This aspect explains why some people would rather choose to live in a world of illusions than face the discomfort that truth may