“On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”/”On Truth and Lie in the Extramoral Sense”
By Friedrich Nietzsche
I love philosophy classes. Granted I have only taken a few – back in Ohio and down in Southern Oregon – but the ones I did take were amazing. So after the first day of Eng 345 (Intro to literary criticism and theory), and I went home to read this essay, I was thrilled. It seems as though this class is going to combine two things that I find most interesting in the world; radical philosophical ideals, and reading.

Friedrich Nietzsche
So, my plan for this post is to type out the notes I took and other thoughts and revelations as I’m typing them. I figure, if I type them again maybe I’ll from some new ideas and understand the text more fully for the class. If you click on the photo it should take you to a full text (if I did the link right).
So the first thing we tackled in class was the perspective and context for the essay. The perspective (at least in the beginning) is indicated with the first few sentences. “Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beats invented knowing… the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die” (Nietzsche 79). I would say that the perspective here is the universe as a whole, including time, since we see that the clever beasts die. I would hesitate to say it was from the perspective of a superior being such as a god-like presence, since later in the text Nietzsche seems to dismiss the existence of such a being. However it does seem like he is writing as though the entire universe or whole of existence is some sort of thinking creature.
Most of Nietzsche’s ideals in this essay deny the existence of ‘God’, but one passage in particular seemed to stand out in this respect, at least to me.
“He [man] strives to understand the world as something analogous to man, and at best he achieves by his struggles the feeling of assimilation. Similar to the way in which astrologers considered the stars to be in man’s service and connected with his happiness and sorrow, such an investigator considers the entire universe in connection with man: the entire universe as the infinitely fractured echo of one original sound – man; the entire universe as the infinitely multiplied copy of one original picture – man. His method is to treat man as the measure of all things, but in doing so he again proceeds from the error of believing that he has thee things [which he intends to measure] immediately before him as mere objects. He forgets that the original perceptual metaphors are metaphors and takes them to be the things themselves” (Nietzsche 86).
If you believe Nietzsche in this passage, which I think I might slightly agree, then man created the image of the universe after himself. God is therefore only God because we have created him in this way instead of the common religious practice of ‘God created man in his own image.’ I have not read enough of Nietzsche to guess at his religion but I don’t think he was an atheist. If I were to ask him what he thought of a higher being, at the time he wrote this paper, I believe he would say that if there were some being that created the world or the universe, that we wouldn’t have the means to even begin to understand what it ‘was.’ And that it would be arrogant assume that we could even try to understand something that could create a universe.

This is what I do in college... I draw
This is my terrible and blurry sketch of what we discussed in class. Basically humans see something, our brain perceives it, and then we name it. But the name has no connection to what the thing actually is. In short, language is necessary but Nietzsche wants us to remember that it should remain as simply a way to communicate and not a way to define.
The example given in class was the ways in which the new military actions in Libya are being defined – through metaphor – and that these comparisons have potentially harmful consequences. Recently, and I’m not going to give examples since I feel as though you could turn on any news station and hear this, the bombings in Libya have been compared to sports games. Actually, now that I think about it, a lot of what has been going on in the Middle East has been referred to time and time again as games. I remember hearing the former Vice President, Dick Cheney, say that finding weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East would be a ‘slam dunk.’
The point being that Nietzsche would have balked at this – the fact that people are taking something as complicated a situation, and defining it with b-ball game metaphors. We may think that this is harmless – a way to explain things in simpler terms so we can understand them – but this is how ‘truths’ are made. If we keep using game metaphors as a way to explain the goings-on in the Middle East, then won’t it eventually become truth? According to Friedrich, if he were still alive of course, that is exactly what will happen. Which brings me to the main point (in my opinion) of his essay.
“Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins” (Nietzsche 84).
And to be truthful is to tell the same lies that the ‘herd’ is telling, to imply the usual metaphors. Those in power (in the case of my example) the government, can create these truths. The harmful consequence could be that war will no longer be the complicated thing that it is, and will simply be a game. We use these metaphors in order to understand complicated things, and to communicate them to the masses, but whether your simplifying or fully explaining your metaphor, someone is being left out.
I digress
This blog has become way to long, and I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of this essay. I will leave it by saying that Nietzsche knows we can’t live without language if we want to communicate. Even if we stayed audibly silent, we would still be putting words to the thoughts in our heads. You can’t escape language, you can only be aware that it is simply a tool and not a truth. I don’t believe everything that he states in his argument but I do agree with a lot of it.
If anyone else has read this and wants to add to it in the comments, be my guest, I love discussing these types of things.