 |
| Edvard Munch, Portrait of Friedrich Nietzsche, 1906 |
Select a passage from Nietzsche's essay (it could be a paragraph, a sentence, a single word—or you might trace a concept that occurs repeatedly) that you find especially crucial. Quote your passage and comment briefly on:
1. What you think it might mean to the overall argument as you understand it. Do you agree or disagree with Nietzsche's perspective?
2. What the implications of reconceiving language in this way might be. How does this illuminate the Structuralist account of language (i.e. Saussure's theory of the linguistic sign)?
12 comments:
“Only by means of forgetfulness can man ever arrive at imagining that he possesses “truth” in that degree just indicated” (pg. 262). I found this quote so groundbreaking because, within the first few seconds of reading, he has already given you a whole different way of thinking, which is to forget everything you regard as truth. Immediately, Nietzsche rebuttals Plato's argument. Plato’s ideas are hard to grasp, at least for me, because it isn’t a way of thinking that is easily accessible. Sure, Plato uses stories to help you grasp his ideas, but his work is just that, HIS ideas. His ideas he considers the truth because it comes from an all-powerful God that controls our thoughts. The problem, that Nietzsche so graciously points out, is that you must question everything to get the truth. I love this way of thinking because though it's not easy to disregard everything we find to be the truth; everyone can process what they encounter and come to their own conclusion. Nietzsche gives us tools to understand the world around us in our own way rather than Plato, who talks at us instead of inviting us to have our own perceptions and beliefs.
"The different languages placed side by side show that with words truth or adequate expression matters little: for otherwise there would not be so many languages" (263). This part of the passage stood out to me and got me thinking about how words impact soceity and our way of thinking. Growing up I always heard the phrases "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" and "actions speak louder than words". Of course, we were all made to believe that this wasn't true and words did have an impact. But what if we all genuinely believed that language was in the grand scheme of things, meaningless? Nietzsche's writing furthers this thought and gives reasoning behind this line of thinking. Words, as Nietzsche puts it, are arbitrary metaphors. The only reason they have meaning is because we assign that meaning to them. This speaks volumes about what we believe about ourselves and our position in the world. The systems that we let govern most of our lives are systems that we created. Any pain one feels as a result of language and its "meaning" could therefore be considered self-inflicted. This supports the structuralist theory of language because the point Nietzsche makes is that language is arbitrary and words are only representations of existing concepts, representations that can be interpreted in millions of different ways.
“Truths are illusions of which one have forgotten that they are illusions; worn-out metaphors which have become powerless to affect the senses” (263). This quote stood out to me because it connects to one of the big ideas that I think he is trying to get across in his writing. Which is the idea that truths are just illusions that humans have made about life and have brought through time and history. He talks a lot about how each human has created their own illusions and truths about reality and that these have carried on through time. We have made these illusions and truths in order to fit in with society. I think that this quote connects to this idea that he talks about so much in this piece of writing. Another idea that this quote seems to connect to, to me, is the idea that we place value on things that create truth and meaning. This idea I think is also represented in this quote. This is why this one stood out to me when reading Nietzsche’s writing again. I think that seeing language this way changes the views on the truth that words and speech holds. He makes you question the things that are said and the illusions that are woven into them. It really makes you think differently about the world and the people and ideas that surround you.
“The seeker after such truths seeks at the bottom only the metamorphosis of the world in man, he strives for an understanding of the world as a human-like thing and by his battling gains at best the feeling of an assimilation…His procedure is to apply man as the measure of all things, whereby he starts from the error of believing that he has these things immediately before him as pure objects. He therefore forgets that the original metaphors of perception are metaphors, and takes them for the things by themselves” - In rereading this section of Nietzsche’s argument, I found this notion to be both the most interesting part of the essay as well as the aspect that most differentiates from our current notion of understanding reality and “truth”. Within this quotation, Nietzsche is arguing that, in subjectively applying truths or categorizations to the objects in the world and attempting to classify the world around us, we as individuals and as a species are understanding reality in a fundamentally flawed way. Rather than understanding that the things that we notice around us are solely representations, produced by our senses and registered in our minds as perceptions, we as a species instead have chosen to believe that the objects we perceive (like camels) are the true, inherent forms of those things, and that they inherently possess the designation (i.e. mammals) that we assign to them. As Nietzsche argues, both the first and second parts of this procedures are incorrect: not only are the things we see solely the metaphors of said object (i.e. a representation of a camel), but the designations that we give said things (i.e. the word “camel” or “mammal”) are not inherent to those objects either. In this sense, Nietzsche essentially flips our entire current notion of perceiving reality on its head – we as humans do not truly discover and understand the things in our world in themselves but can only at best perceive a copy of said things, which possess no inherent definition or meaning. In terms of my own understanding, I would agree with Nietzsche’s characterization of the world, as it is undeniably true that the objects that we now understand to exist (such as camels) have existed well before any one person “discovered” them and gave them their name, and given that many different names can exist for the same object (camel, chameau, camello, etc.), it is only logical that such definitions are not inherent to the objects in themselves. Additionally, it seems evident that Nietzsche’s example exemplifies the idea put forth by Saussure in his theory of the linguistic sign, as both the perception/first metaphor and sound/second metaphor that are inherent to Nietzsche’s theory easily coincide with Saussure’s concept of the signifier and signified. However, in arguing that even the perception/signified/concept that humans recognize are themselves illusions, I believe that Nietzsche fundamentally reminds us as readers of our sheer incapability to find or determine an objective world or truth, as in believing that we can truly perceive the objects in our world, we are inherently applying the subjective lens of human experience onto all our surroundings.
“Every idea originated through equating the unequal. As certainly as no one leaf is exactly similar to any other, so certain is that the idea ‘leaf’ has been formed through an arbitrary omission of these individual differences, through a forgetting of the differentiating qualities, and this idea now awakens the notion that in nature there is, besides the leaves, a something called “the leaf”, perhaps a primal form according to which all leaves were woven, drawn, accurately measured, colored, crinkled, painted, but by unskilled hands, so that no copy had turned our correct and trustworthy as a true copy of the primal form.” (Nietzsche, 263). This really got me thinking because I think it is worded so strategically and you are forced to think further about the actual point he is trying to get across. “… originated through equating the unequal.” This took me a while to interpret because I think it can be taken in many different directions. If leaves, for example, were purposefully created to all be different, than are they really different? Same thing could be said about snowflakes. I definitely see where Nietzsche is coming from, I’m just not sure if I agree or not. The problem is not necessarily the leaf but the language that we use to describe that so called leaf. According to Saussure’s theory of signs we would associate a leaf with the sound because language only represents interpretations and things that we perceive.
“If I take the definition of a mammal and then declare after inspecting a camel, ‘behold a mammal’, then no doubt a truth is brought to light thereby, but it is of very limited value… the seeker after such truths… strives for an understanding of the world as a human-like thing and by his battling gains at best the feeling of assimilation” (Neitzsche 264) I believe that this brings a new perspective to truth as we (humans) see it; we strive for our “truth” as a population or, for a person, personally. We seek our truth and reinforce that truth with others who also believe our truth, which doesn’t lead to truth, but rather assimilation (with Neitzsche’s theory in mind). While I enjoy this new perspective presented in this text to the reader, I find myself a slightly disagreeing, taking a literal stance on truth. Other beings (camels and mammals etc.) have little to no thought about their being— because they lack complex thought— they just are. We, as complex beings, assign them categories of being for our own being (learning, observing, classifying etc.). So while our human-like truth is not universally true, it is true to complex being such as ourselves. In response to the second prompt, there may not be any major repercussions for interpreting language as Neitzsche sees it besides mild confusion when it comes to human-like tasks. This way of thinking is freeing to the seeker of truth without obligations or tasks. This mindset is liberating, yes, but only to those who are liberated from everything. Others cannot afford to think like this out of fear of being misunderstood and the failure that may arise from that misunderstanding. To humans, it can be understood, but it cannot be a mindset fully absolved into human life. Secondly, not actually achieving truth, but rather achieving assimilation illuminates Saussure’s way of thinking. According to Saussure, langage is the general faculty of human communication though signs, Neitzsche agrees in that classifying things, no matter how we perceive, there is communication. It does not matter how me, or the person next to me perceives a camel or a mammal. There is still a classification of the thing. Though it is not universal, there is still a classifying of things through langage.
“How should we dare, if truth with the genesis of language, if the point of view of certainty with the designations had alone been decisive; how indeed should we dare to say: the stone is hard; as if “hard” was known to us otherwise: and not merely as an entirely subjective stimulus. We divide things according to genders; we designate the tree as masculine, the plant as feminine: what arbitrary metaphors!” (262-263) - This part of Nietzsche’s writing was touched upon in class but to me is one of the most important parts of understanding his perspective. Through giving two examples of the stone being hard and the gendering of trees, he stresses the lack of universal truth. Plato believed in one truth and that everyone should simultaneously agree with him whereas Nietzsche argued the opposite. He questioned everything and went on further to say how do we know the things we know. How do we know the stone is hard? How do we know whether the tree is masculine or feminine? Especially if in one language tree is feminine and in another it is masculine. Who is to say that is right or wrong? It all comes down to subjective perspective and how we see things. I can pick up a stone and say it is hard but someone else may disagree with me. Nietzche is saying that "hard" does not necessarily define a stone, it is a subjective stimulus, not the essence of the stone itself. He believes there is no universal truth and when interpreting truth everyone has a different truth. Words create frameworks and truth is a linguistic framework that relates back to the structuralist account of language. I agree with Nietzsche because there are so many ways to look at the world. I may perceive something in one way whereas someone may open my eyes to something I never even thought of and it is alright to disagree and see how the world and perspectives are constantly changing because there is fluidity in the world.
“Truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions” (263). I think that this quote is very important to acknowledge because it symbolizes that people have believed in what they think are concrete “truths” for so long that it has become their own objective truth. My way of understanding this is that all people have their own version of the truth, meaning that there is always a side of a story the someone holds as the truth for themselves based on where they might have been raised or who they might look up to. I believe that this helps support Nietzsche’s perspective because all people place different variations of value over what they consider important or truthful. Philosophers hold a different truth compared to scientists; the same way professors hold different truths compared to those who have Faith as a profession. This can also be related to cultures and languages. Everyone has their own meaning for something. Like we said in class, a tree may be a tree to me but could be something completely different for another person. The “truth” about a tree, that it is a tall wooden post with growing leaves on it, could be a “truth illusion” of someone’s objective truth brought up through history. I know it as tree, but other cultures and languages know it as something else. The word truth gets misinterpreted with objective truth. People can understand each other even if they do not speak the same language because language is only a way people identify something or how they represent it to others. Truth and language are similar concepts because there is not one language and there is not one universal truth. They are both used by people to describe that which they wish to identify. This does not make them right or wrong, concrete or illusion.
“His procedure is to apply man as the measure of all things, whereby he starts from the error of believing that he has these things immediately before him as pure objects, He therefore forgets that the original metaphors of perception are metaphors, and takes them for the things themselves (264).”
In this passage, Nietzche states his conclusion that the analysis of our world is imperfect, and has no chance to describe the natural world as it exists, only as we know it. All scientific discovery and observation that humans take part in are measured in application to humans, and in no other context. Our only way of identifying and understanding that which happens in front of us is through our own imperfect senses, and we can never know how much this differs from a potential ‘reality’ as long as we do. This understanding and discovery, Nietzche argues, begins with the immediate error of assuming the truthfulness of the things in front of us. Even in the identification and definition of things that we observe, there remains this imperfection and to assume that a human definition of anything could ever be taken as “‘true-in-itself,’ real and universally valid (264),” is a misunderstanding of our way of interacting with the world. Saussure’s theory recognizes this shortcoming, and identifies that the basics of language rely on the measurement of things through human experience and metaphors rather than the actual existence of the things we symbolize through words. Later in his writing, Nietzche explains that through acknowledging the ways that we observe the world, we can instead view our representation as an artistic form. By admitting the falsity of our world, we can exist in it much more vividly than before.
“Only by means of forgetfulness can man ever arrive at imagining that he possesses ‘truth’ and in that degree just indicated. If he does not mean to content himself with truth in the shape of tautology, that is, with empty husks, he will always obtain illusions instead of truth.” (Nietzsche p.262) I personally believe that Nietzsche is trying to tell us as readers that the truth comes from different things and the truth changes depending on the person and the perspective. Something I realized while reading Nietzsche and have left every class period with is the understanding he makes you question. For example, he makes the reader question your ideas and what you think is the “truth”. But throughout this questioning he will never tell you his perspective or what he believes is the answer. How this relates to the structuralist account of language is because Saussure says that the language basics are based off things that could be seen as or identified as a metaphor or figurative. Words have meaning and sometimes we use words to describe symbols, yet those words used do not look like the symbol itself. Nietzsche talks about how we need to begin to observe and watch the world around us carefully, because everything is based off representation.
I believe Nietzsche’s overall argument was that humans don’t have a perfect understanding of the world, so in order to have the upper hand in the battle for understanding, humans have created language. Language is our system/ way of describing nonhuman things in a human world. It is a way of having a description of our experiences and for the objects that we experience. Nietzsche says, “The seeker after such truths at the bottom only the metamorphosis of the world in man, he strives for an understanding of the world as a human-like thing and by battling gains at best the feeling of assimilation”. I do agree with Nietzsche our “human truths” are not universally true. I appreciate that he recognizes that language was formed for communication and organization, but he brings up some liberating ideas about the human experience. The classification of objects may not be “true” but we need it to describe our experience.
“What therefore is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms: in short a sum of human relations which become poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed, adorned, and after long usage seem to a notion fixed, canonic, and binding; truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions; worn-out metaphors which have become powerless to affect the senses; coins which have their obverse effaced and are no longer of accounts as coins but merely as metal.”
1. To Nietzsche’s point, I agree that truth can be an arbitrary, even fleeting concept because it is often used to justify or enforce prejudice. When I read the word ‘canonical’ in Nietzsche’s essay, for example, the first thing I thought of was how religious zealots constantly tweak the Bible’s ‘truths’ to better-suit their own interests, like how blended fibers and divorce used to be unallowed but conveniently became accepted so these same people could cherry pick more bigoted passages/teachings.
2. I think reconceiving language in this manner is an enriching concept without a doubt, but I can also see it leading to problematic behavior. For example, I can see bigoted people using it to perpetuate the notion that “words only have as much power as we give them” as an excuse to use various slurs and derogatory language.
Post a Comment