“On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” is an unfinished work written by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1873. In this work, Nietzsche takes an approach to explaining the truth in a way that we would all find very unusual, but that is merely the Nietzsche way. In this essay I will analyze how Nietzsche views the truth, as explained in “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” In “On truth and lies in a Nonmoral Sense” Nietzsche approaches the truth in a very Kantian manner. Kant, being the skeptic he was, believed that the truth was impossible to discover and that, we will never know it. Kant also believed that you would never know if your soul was immortal or if you truly have free will. Using the Kantian philosophy, Nietzsche attempts to convince …show more content…
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 …show more content…
The first reason for this would be because Nietzsche believes that Socrates and philosophy have killed art, and he also believes we do not need the truth because we have art and music. In “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” Nietzsche says that science is part of the “columbarium of concepts” (Pg. 150), this meaning simply that concepts kill, and since Nietzsche believes the truth is a concept, and then in turn he is saying the truth kills. According to Nietzsche, concepts kill the imagination, which in turn kills art. According to Nietzsche, music does away with the truth; we do not need the truth because we have music. We know that “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” is written with a Kantian mindset, but this phrase of “columbarium of concepts” almost has a Schopenhauer twist to it. Schopenhauer, who was not a skeptic like Kant, believed that we could discover the truth, but it was
In philosophy “Nihilism” is a position of radical skepticism. It is the belief that all values are baseless and nothing is known. The word “Nihilism” itself conveys a sense of abolishing or destroying (IEP). Nietzsche’s work and writings are mostly associated with nihilism in general, and moral nihilism especially. Moral nihilism questions the reality and the foundation of moral values. Nietzsche supported his view on morality by many arguments and discussions on the true nature of our inner self. Through my paper on Moral Nihilism, I will explain 5 major arguments and then try to construct a deductive argument for each, relying on Nietzsche’s book II “Daybreak”.
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:
Overall Nietzsche is successful at responding to Schopenhauer’s philosophy as his work in Birth of Tragedy, in introducing the Apollonian and Dionysian, echoes and coincides with Schopenhauer’s ideas. Schopenhauer claims that knowledge and art are the way to escape the will, suffering, and Nietzsche seems to describe the process of doing that by defining art and its connections to knowledge. Those who disagree that Nietzsche is successful might say that him defining art for Schopenhauer is going too far. One cannot deny that there may be different paths to achieving perfect knowledge and contemplation, however, within the generality of Schopenhauer saying that art and knowledge are the ways to escape suffering, Nietzsche successfully created a definition for art and a valid argument that stays within the parameters of Schopenhauer’s philosophy.
Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 26 August 2004.
Firstly, Nietzsche stated that life is death in the making and all humans should not be determined by an external force rather, he believed that humans should have the incentive to think for themselves. Nietzsche claimed the future of a man is in his own hands. Simultaneously, humans are phased with struggles in the attempt to self-create themselves. Nietzsche proceeded with his argument affirming
“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.
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.
Kant’s assertion that one must tell the truth no matter the consequences comes from the moral principle of the categorical imperative. Categorical imperatives are absolute commands that we ought to follow, period. Kant believed that lying fell under
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
But he objects to the values of the New Testament that shouldn't be linked to the Old Testament. They demote power. He sees religion as intensely nihilistic - it's all about denying life and being negative. Nietzsche feels that the New Testament is also like that. We have to go beyond this.
The system of justice that Nietzsche employs although somewhat cynical has a substantial amount of merit as a form of justice, which is present in our society. This is demonstrated through the depiction of the creditor/debtor relationship that exists in our democratic societies, and the equalization process that occurs, and furthermore that Nietzsche is correct to assess justice as such a principle. The issue is most obvious in the penal system; however it is also prevalent in personal day-to-day relationships as well as political structures.
On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, Nietzsche. United States of America: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2001. 1171-1179. Print
Nietzsche wrote a piece called “God Is Dead”. Nietzsche wrote this piece based upon his view point of Christianity. Nietzsche rejected the Christian morality and believed that Christianity in Western Europe was heading into the wrong direction. “Christianity is Platonism for the people” was said by Nietzsche because, Plato believed that there was a better or pure world and could be accomplished by going back to the world we used to live. In another sense, Plato focused on a past life and ideas that came from that life to have a successful pure life. Nietzsche’s view of religion, he believed that by focusing on the scientism part of the religion, religion all together was moving from bad to worse. By saying “God Is Dead” which can be judged
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
Intellectual thought since Nietzsche has found itself one way or another addressing the death of God. Most of this thinking, however, has taken place from an atheistic starting point and has not considered its own presuppositions. It strives to find consistent outworking from these presuppositions and to eradicate the shadow of God carried over from the Enlightenment tradition because of its grounding in a theistic worldview. However, the outcome and implications of thinking after the death of God has been found hideous and many attempts have been made to transcend the absurdity there.