A Nietzschean conception of truth.

iamconfidence

“Deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself – in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity – is so much the rule and the law among men that there is almost nothing which is less comprehensible than how an honest and pure drive for truth could have arisen among them.”
- Nietzsche, "Philosophy and Truth" from the essay "On Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense."

I've been working on an examination of Nietzsche's concept(s) of truth. I'm basically working through his whole corpus, but I'm interested in discussing it in both an academic and social capacity.

To start out with, it should be understood that Nietzsche's earlier work is sensitive and often doesn't aptly reflect positions he held in what is generally considered his mature work. This generally concerns The Birth of Tragedy and Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. So, citations and discussions from that period are fine, they just may conflict with notions of later publications.

Secondly, The Will to Power will not be considered credible for the purposes of this discussion. The work is widely held in question among scholars in any case due to it's being published as a collection of his notes arranged by his sister after he was catatonic.

Now for a few insights of my own to begin: Nietzsche at least offers clear distinctions between truth and knowledge and over the span of his work provides a pretty robust selection of citations to chose from in developing a stance on the full meaning of each term. He also makes it quite clear that each of the two concepts is pivotal to various aspects of his work.

Truth seems to be an illusive static concept. It could even be said that "truth" is actually not positively rationalized term, but rather a confirmation of the things we know to be errors. Knowledge seems to be a subjective source of consistency and function. Not "truth" as it applies to all, but more of a relative understanding that serves to help those who possess it.

I've only provided insights rather than citations for my thoughts above because it feels better not to argue my views too hard when regarding a man who deliberately spoke in metaphor, prose and aphorisms as a means by which to cause his readers to question his intent. (See An Attempt at Self Criticism and Ecce Homo)

So, I realize I'm going out on a limb here, this being my first thread and all... but what do you all think he's on about?

Zilla360

Humans are all basically facetious? Only ever speaking in half truths?

Another quote (I don't remember who by):

"All truths are derived by successive attrition of lies and misdirection, yielding only once reduced to the greatest of scrutiny."

LoserForHireX

iamconfidence wrote: »

“Deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself – in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity – is so much the rule and the law among men that there is almost nothing which is less comprehensible than how an honest and pure drive for truth could have arisen among them.”
- Nietzsche, "Philosophy and Truth" from the essay "On Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense."

I've been working on an examination of Nietzsche's concept(s) of truth. I'm basically working through his whole corpus, but I'm interested in discussing it in both an academic and social capacity.

To start out with, it should be understood that Nietzsche's earlier work is sensitive and often doesn't aptly reflect positions he held in what is generally considered his mature work. This generally concerns The Birth of Tragedy and Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. So, citations and discussions from that period are fine, they just may conflict with notions of later publications.

Secondly, The Will to Power will not be considered credible for the purposes of this discussion. The work is widely held in question among scholars in any case due to it's being published as a collection of his notes arranged by his sister after he was catatonic.

Now for a few insights of my own to begin: Nietzsche at least offers clear distinctions between truth and knowledge and over the span of his work provides a pretty robust selection of citations to chose from in developing a stance on the full meaning of each term. He also makes it quite clear that each of the two concepts is pivotal to various aspects of his work.

Truth seems to be an illusive static concept. It could even be said that "truth" is actually not positively rationalized term, but rather a confirmation of the things we know to be errors. Knowledge seems to be a subjective source of consistency and function. Not "truth" as it applies to all, but more of a relative understanding that serves to help those who possess it.

I've only provided insights rather than citations for my thoughts above because it feels better not to argue my views too hard when regarding a man who deliberately spoke in metaphor, prose and aphorisms as a means by which to cause his readers to question his intent. (See An Attempt at Self Criticism and Ecce Homo)

So, I realize I'm going out on a limb here, this being my first thread and all... but what do you all think he's on about?

Very interesting. I'm gonna get my copy of Human, All Too Human and Genealogy of Morals and find some citations for you, but I'm pretty sure he actually refers to a capitalized T "truth," indicating (by translation) that he is holding to some external truth that is empirically verifiable. In fact, it seems that one of the major qualities of a free spirit (arguably the same thing as a Master) is a relentless and often self-torturing search for the truth. He talks often in Human, All too Human about the pain and anguish that the truth can or should produce in one who is a seeker of it. That would indicate to me that what constitutes a real seeker of the truth is one who regularly questions the things that he is most emotionally invested in.

ohhaythar

LoserForHireX wrote: »

iamconfidence wrote: »

“Deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself – in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity – is so much the rule and the law among men that there is almost nothing which is less comprehensible than how an honest and pure drive for truth could have arisen among them.”
- Nietzsche, "Philosophy and Truth" from the essay "On Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense."

I've been working on an examination of Nietzsche's concept(s) of truth. I'm basically working through his whole corpus, but I'm interested in discussing it in both an academic and social capacity.

To start out with, it should be understood that Nietzsche's earlier work is sensitive and often doesn't aptly reflect positions he held in what is generally considered his mature work. This generally concerns The Birth of Tragedy and Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. So, citations and discussions from that period are fine, they just may conflict with notions of later publications.

Secondly, The Will to Power will not be considered credible for the purposes of this discussion. The work is widely held in question among scholars in any case due to it's being published as a collection of his notes arranged by his sister after he was catatonic.

Now for a few insights of my own to begin: Nietzsche at least offers clear distinctions between truth and knowledge and over the span of his work provides a pretty robust selection of citations to chose from in developing a stance on the full meaning of each term. He also makes it quite clear that each of the two concepts is pivotal to various aspects of his work.

Truth seems to be an illusive static concept. It could even be said that "truth" is actually not positively rationalized term, but rather a confirmation of the things we know to be errors. Knowledge seems to be a subjective source of consistency and function. Not "truth" as it applies to all, but more of a relative understanding that serves to help those who possess it.

I've only provided insights rather than citations for my thoughts above because it feels better not to argue my views too hard when regarding a man who deliberately spoke in metaphor, prose and aphorisms as a means by which to cause his readers to question his intent. (See An Attempt at Self Criticism and Ecce Homo)

So, I realize I'm going out on a limb here, this being my first thread and all... but what do you all think he's on about?

Very interesting. I'm gonna get my copy of Human, All Too Human and Genealogy of Morals and find some citations for you, but I'm pretty sure he actually refers to a capitalized T "truth," indicating (by translation) that he is holding to some external truth that is empirically verifiable. In fact, it seems that one of the major qualities of a free spirit (arguably the same thing as a Master) is a relentless and often self-torturing search for the truth. He talks often in Human, All too Human about the pain and anguish that the truth can or should produce in one who is a seeker of it. That would indicate to me that what constitutes a real seeker of the truth is one who regularly questions the things that he is most emotionally invested in.

it's always been a belief of mine that skepticism would always lead a person to their own conclusions, not necessarily to the opposite conclusions. ironically it is this philosophy that confirmed my belief in god. i doubted and tried to disprove everything about god to the point where i couldn't. since then i do that every chance i get, and i have to say that it is effective in showing yourself what you really believe. humans all to often try to "convince" themselves they belief something when skepticism forces them to believe in the right things.

[proposing an absolute] i do wonder if this means that people (before doubting it) believe in the opposite of what they truly believe; that everyone is subscribing to false beliefs.