We recently learned about Saussure’s explanation of linguistics, the value of words and signification too. He is considered to have played a very important role in linguistics as a field. His theories are well thought and organized to be able to notice that kind of impact on the language studying.

One of these explanations is the way we perceive words, how we understand them, and theorizing over the reasons why different languages have separate sounds and words about the same things. There really isn’t a known truth or fact behind them, but the fact that the meanings are socially agreed upon. In the book we read about the signifier, which is the physical aspect of the sign and the signified, which is the meaning that is related to the signifier. There is no natural connection between the sound of a word and its meaning. An example of that is how there is no reason why a word like “owl” should refer to a creature with feathers.

One of the other points he makes that I find very interesting is the idea of not looking at words as just labels to put on certain things. Instead, Saussure describes them as vehicles for thought, in the sense that they can shape our perception of these objects in different ways. The concept of time can be taken as an example. Time is seen as a progress from the past to the present, and then to the future. We use words such as “yesterday”, “today” and “tomorrow” to define them. I do believe there can be a lot more psychological connections to these “tools” of communication.

Saussure’s conclusions are good enough to influence the reader’s  perspective and impact the way we think about language. The importance of understanding language as a system is brought up multiple times, because it gives more meaning to the perception of words as part of a bigger group, rather than a single thing that has no relation to other parts of the language. This way our thought process is also driven to connect the dots on how there’s a lot of things that affect the language.

The relationship between signs and symbols are merely concepts of a reality that does not exist. The human mind seeks elucidation of particular instruments in the materiality of the universe. However, the notional idea of objects and ideas are an illusion that was created to communicate and associate abstraction with significance. In relation to semiotics, or the study of signs and symbols, Saussure characterizes the interpretation of language as a social phenomenon in which “langue” and “parole” construct a system of understatement in society. Langue is the term which describes the role of language in civilization whereas parole is the actual use of language that is individual and free. Saussure connects this ideology to the concept of the signifier and the signified. The signifier is the physical form of sound and letters that are related to an object or concept. The signified is the mental image that represents that very thing. There is no relationship between concepts and the physical form of the word itself. The creation of words is simply arbitrary. Although the signifier assists humans to communicate and recognize, the use of a designated word is what separates the independent thing from its unique endowment to the universe. The division of a unique title and the subject is ironically the cause of insignificance. When observing the existence of a focused being, that initial reaction toward it is what gives it value and acknowledges its contribution to the world through distinction. Though, in order to exchange a set of words and ideas, one must give in to the power of langue. In this predicament, the authority of language deprives an individual from forming their own perspective and isolated experience. There is no equilibrium in which langue and parole have equal authority. Language is what ignites community but disposes the importance of an original experience of expression and cognition. Despite having syntagmatic relations that align with the same ideas, words and descriptions are still not able to signify the initial response to encounters that are unrepeatable. The appellations of nature or other things that carry several various characteristics and images put mankind in solitude. This links to Nietzsche’s ideology that language differentiates society from completely unordinary interpretations of reality. In closing, language is the executor of individuality yet no faction would survive without it. The real analysis of concepts would mean nothing with language but no other would be able to understand without it.

        The barrier of verity and deception is a convoluted conversation in which divides the very existence of individuals. Nietzsche’s critique of the consequences of language is a direct result of egotism and lack of dimension within the human mind. The passage, “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense ” glorifies the original perspective of thoughts and is viewed as a true interpretation of the society in which humans reside. As a species that has progressed without any primal specialties, the introduction of new ideas is so limited yet humans who grasp for self validation search for properties which are already present in the universe.  For instance, Nietzsche compares this ideology to the discovery of mammals and identifying a camel as a mammal. The value of this truth is questionable. The vigor of exploration is a human trait that has declined through the use of language that describes objects or animals in a way that generalizes while taking away its significant uniqueness. Another comparison involves the word “leaf” where the distinct attributes are ignored and are seen as irrelevant in its existence.  The mind neglects to acknowledge anything beyond direct observation. Nietzsche emphasizes the superiority of acknowledging one’s surroundings not by words but with the admiration of the characteristics that are displayed. 

         Nietzsche also expresses the separation of man and nature. When discussing rivers, he mentions that humans are more likely to reference the beneficial aspects of the river than the natural significance. This connects to the selfishness of mankind and their inability to comprehend deeper and more relevant concepts of their surroundings. This notion is a category of the egotistic mindset that abandons eccentric qualities. The names given to collective things are metaphors that represent a group of an object rather than the item itself. According to the author, this is a form of lying. The foundation of lies consist of the manipulation of common language including these metaphors. One thing to a person can mean something completely different through various perspectives. However, the severity of the lie depends on the negative reaction from others. 

          Although, the capacity of truthfulness is narrow due to the existence of falses, without lies, there is no truth. The reality of these two contrasting perceptions create an equilibrium. There is none without the other. Nietzsche understands that there is no way to diminish the use of metaphors and lying. The incorporation of abstract language and thoughtful commentary is the appropriate practice of the human mind in which the perspective of mankind is related to the beauty of the world.

In less than 10 pages, Nietzsche provides a profound argument that re-evaluates the relationship between humanity and the universe around them. In a sense, he seeks to put humanity and their intellectual endeavors “in its place”, in contradistinction to the ideology of his time (still persisting to this day) which places the human as the main character of the universe, equipped with a wholly unique intelligence that allows them to discover the universe’s “hidden truths”.

When we talk about Truth, it is always framed in such a way as to make it seem as if we are discovering something that was previously hidden from us: e.g., we say that Einstein “discovered” the theory of general relativity or that Darwin “discovered” the theory of evolution, and so on. It is as if these truths were always there and the scientist is a kind of archeologist digging them up with the power of his own thought. It is very reminiscent of Plato’s forms, where the individual objects that compose our world are only copies or imperfect imitations of some perfect and ideal form, existing in some immaterial realm that only our intellect and rationality is able to grasp. And Nietzsche seeks to invert this relationship. For him, the reality of a thing is not an imperfect imitation of its ideal form, but the direct opposite: the concept of a leaf, for example, is only an abstraction from the infinitely many nuances of several actually-existing leaves, that not only our language is unable to identify and differentiate, but even our very sense of perception.

Against the idea that human intelligence is uniquely apt for the “discovery” of Truth, Nietzsche reminds us that we are animals that have been (and still are) subjected to the same evolutionary forces as all other animals, which thus means human intelligence exists only by serving a practical function. An intelligence which is only able to formulate Truths, that is only able to perfectly represent the world before us as an idea, is altogether useless: we already have actual leaves in nature, why would we need a copy of them existing as an idea in the minds of humans? Human beings are not the strongest animals, nor the fastest, nor the most resilient. On a physical level, human beings are incredibly unremarkable and weak creatures, even compared to our fellow primates. But our intelligence which manifests in our cunningness, our inventiveness, and our creativity given the circumstances–and not our cautiousness to perfectly represent and discover the Truth of whatever lies before us–is what allows us to dominate and overcome our struggles.

And this is perhaps one of the main points Nietzsche is getting at: that human intellectual endeavors towards Truth are not opposed or superior to, or even distinct from human intellectual endeavors towards creating myth or art. Both are manifestations of human power to dominate their environment and overcome their struggles. Both emerge out of an innate drive (existing as a result of our intelligence) to superimpose upon reality an entire layer of fictional abstractions that do not exist outside our minds nor are important to anyone except ourselves. Our culture glorifies what Nietzsche calls the “rational” person who, from a non-human outsider’s perspective, is only a person entirely invested in and lead by their own intellectual creations. They navigate the world believing their ideas are more real than the world itself, even though they are–to put it bluntly–so far up their own ass they can’t even see the light of reality anymore. In contrast to them is the intuitive person, who relying solely on their immediate impulses to navigate the world. They are present in it at every moment. They are not interested in perfect representation or the Truth about things as their intellectual and even real endeavors involve only to imprint themselves upon the world before them, to make art out of the world. The rational person cautiously navigates reality in order to minimize pain and maximize their own happiness, for they are only led by “pure” representations of reality. The intuitive person violently confronts reality and stubbornly tries to establish their presence upon it. They are both nevertheless differing manifestations of human power in the world before them, neither are innately superior to or distinct from the other.

In Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lying, he argues the idea that the human perception of what is truth differs from the actual truth. The idea of truth becomes fixed when concepts begin to have the same validity and influence universally. The laws used to govern and create harmony within nations have become fixed, all having the same validity within those borders. Because these laws are set in place in all parts of the nation, they become the “truth”. Nietzsche compares these laws to the laws of language, where words are equivalent to “valid tokens of designation” (Nietzsche, 754), which we use to give things meaning. Even though we use words to make things seem more real, they are arbitrarily used as labels, designating “only the relations of things to human beings” (Nietzsche 755).

Nietzsche claims that the idea of words being universal truths is the only factor distinguishing humans from animals; from our words comes our dependency on dissolving images into concepts, concepts that we then use to give the world around us meaning. We might get the mere feeling of truth when we describe something as smooth, orange, or loud, but in all actuality, these words only describe them in relation to the human experience of the world because they were created and are only used by us. Nietzsche uses the example of a leaf, which we might describe as green or soft, but in nature, neither of these concepts are useful as nature does not need to attach words to forms, nor does any other species on earth. Language is only used to describe the human perception of the world; therefore it is not an adequate expression of the truth.

According to Nietzsche, the correct perception of anything “would mean the full and adequate expression of an object in the subject” (758), which he then deems as impossible, an idea that I can agree with. The full and adequate expression that he refers to is allowing an object to exist without giving it meaning other than its existence, which is something I personally am unable imagine. Human cognition, as Nietzsche says, makes us feel superior to other species; it is what we do to validate our existence and lived experiences. It is instinctive to conceptualize an object rather than letting it be, because as humans, it is what we do to make meaning while other species in nature do not. We cannot strive for Nietzsche’s truth, as it would require humans to let go of everything that differentiates us from other species.

In his story, Nietzsche defines truth as an illusion; an arrogant belief that all one knows is nothing but the truth, an absurdity that turns into irony when the intelligent being is unable to even reckon the essence of its existence. As Nietzsche points out, when they are unable to perceive their own existence — within the blood flowing through their veins and pumping their heart, to their tweaking bones and ripping ligaments, along the many other cells they will never bear knowledge of — all humans have left is nothing but their intellect to prove their fleeting animation. Even then, this existence is merely their singular perception of life as they see the world pivot around them — another irony to our knowledge that all planets pivot around the sun.

Therefore, It is irrational to believe we can capture the world around us in its entirety with mere words. To Nietzsche, language does not seek truth, it is only able to imperfectly imitate entities through the use of metaphors. A singular word like leaf, brings up the ideal image of a leaf, a concept in its primal form that disregards all differences and becomes the common word for this unique entity and all others alike. Language in itself is contradictory because a leaf is a leaf, yet without a unique feature what is so special about this entity for it to be pointed out? What about its color, its shape, is it still hanging on to its withered winter tree, has it been ridden with holes by the worms that eat its essence, or is it thriving under the wildflower that grows between the cracks? See how easily a dead language — a Roman Columbarium, as Nietzsche describes it — is brought to life, escaping classification when metaphors are used to highlight its uniqueness and. 

Truth to a human has no meaning without its relation to other individuals, to Nietzsche our inability to preserve ourselves without seeking validity from society is the fallacy of our “truth”. Throughout the centuries, as humanity established fixed conventions in the form of words and metaphors, creating their own distinction between the poor person who lies about his riches and the true rich, we have forgotten our reality within history. Nietzsche brings us back to our origin, we are all liars entranced in our illusions of the truth — money is but a piece of paper that we as a society have given value to, wealth is a manmade concept, and Capitalism is a manmade hell. Nevertheless, by some sublime obligation we willingly live within this illusion; to Nietzsche, this willingness to lie is a form of self-preservation — for without its intellect how else is the transient being able to perceive the world?

Nietzche’s concept of the essay is about the truth and the effect of the human language. In this essay, Nietzche brings to light the idea of truth , or at least what each individual considers the truth, to be created by our own perspective of it. Humans deceive themselves to believe the information around them to be the truth. They use these beliefs to fit in to the world and their own truth. However , your truth is not what another persons truth is. For example , if you were to take the number 6, and put a person in each end both people would say what they deem to be the truth , the person at the top would say that it’s a 9, while the person at the bottom would say it’s a 6. To both people what they see is what they deem to be the truth , but to the person on the other side would say that they are lying. And it is true, depending on your position on this experiment what you see is the truth , but so is the other person . The truth that humans themselves have created, the selfishness that everything in the world revolves around them and they are the “truth”, the author also calls this “arrogance” from humans and their language the reason why it has “blinded” them(752-753). Something else that I wanted to add is that is the fact that someones perspective is not what the others’ is meant to be, what they describe as something can mean something else through another’s eyes. Going back to the experiment above, to both for the people , what they see is a number but their own perspective changed the number. Nietzche adds in his essay that truth is based on our own beliefs and perspectives. He believes that a truth changes based on the other’s perception of reality. He in a way gives a response to his own essay question, saying that what we perceive to be the truth is not , but in our eyes it is because we base it on our own interpretation. Nietzche also talks about the effects of language. He brings his point forward by talking about the “fixed” truth in society, an example he gave was about a person saying “I am rich”, however in societies’ eyes he is seen as poor(754). The truth in the persons eyes is that he is rich, because each person have their own perspective of richness based on their experiences and what they have. However , he is going to be ignored by society and thrown away if this “truth” of his that he is rich is said in a manner of selfishness. 

Nietzsche essay the “On Truth and Lying in a Nonmoral Sense” he explores many different topics on the mental state of human kind. The one that carries more truth today is the behavior towards truth and how society responds when certain truths are presented to them. People have their own truth and they will follow that and disregard another facts that are presented. This is purely delusion at its finest too many people in our world. Hold on so strongly to their opinion which are truth to them. They are unable to have space for new information that can break down or offer a new view point, to their truth. The so called mature responses to people on the opposite side challenging the truth of the opposing. Is to just insult them or rudely disregard what their saying no matter how much truth was in it.
Nietzsche shows us why human are prone to acting this way. The actions of lies, greed, delusion,anger, or insanity are just a few of why people do this. Although delusion and maybe even stubbornness are really the main reason to denied the truth. People can’t stand when you burst their mental bubble. When you break the structure they have held on to for so long. No one likes to be wrong or made to feel stupid people will sacrifice the truth. Along with their integrity about the truth to safe face. They will go to the extreme to protect a truth which is a lie and will even go far to make the life of the Speaking the truth a living hell.
Now where Nietzsche theory on the truth lands on is  what is truth really to us. In the realm of personal truths that can’t really be explained by facts. Take religion a perfect example of peoples truth on the existence of a celestial being known as God. They have their beliefs which are translated to truth. Many people in this world would disagree with them on how they behave with the truth of their choice of religion. How can they prove it ? Or how can they be sure that is the truth? Is the question many non believers have for people who followed some type of religion. The conversations that comes with the question of people religion truths. Is the same things Nietzsche is conveying in his essay. The behavior and actions towards what people deemed at the truth.

Nietzsche starts his essay with describing humanities evolution as a brief moment in the lifespan of the universe and describes it as an aberration of nature that is ultimately useless. Why? Because the legislation of knowlege was is a social construct. What decide as to hold as the “turth” and “lies” are decided upon for social purposes. These truths hold weight because want to, not because they are objectively true. Nietzsche then describes humans inability to understand objective truths. He makes us feel small and insignificant as he criticises why we can not begin to understand objective truth. Humans are the only ones who can posses and pass down “human knowledge”. Because of this air of superiority that comes with knowing human specific intellect, our view of the world, our axis, is entirely self centered around humans. This is where the problem begins. With our limited scope of knowledge, how do we begin to understand and perceieve things in its entirety and not in relation to ourselves? Meaning, how can we understand things that are outside our view of knowledge without making it about ourselves? How do we begin to understand truth objectively instead subjectively?

Nietzsche’s questions begin to poke holes in things we thought we knew and make readers question everything. Is the language I use to describe myself really true? What am I? The language I use helps create the shape that lets others recognize me as myself, it is a symbol for myself. This is a representation, everything is a shape. But then, what am I? What is my fake self? What is my true self? Nietzsche’s questions show that what we know (or what we think we know) is less than we we do know. In my Nietzsche induced spiral, I noticed he had a specific gripe with excessive symbolism and metaphors. Metaphors, he says, blur the truth instead of creating “building blocks” to what the original subject was, taking readers further away from the objective truth. Nietzsche gives a leaf as an example. Leaf is a metaphor for something green, grows on trees, and appears in nature. But this leaves out so many thungs that are leaves but don’t fit this description! Language is used to comprehend and communicate our reality, but language does not give access to understand the thing in itself. In order to create these understandings, we use metaphors. Metaphors can allow for a new expression of old ideas but ultimatelty cripple our already feeble understanding of things and do not allow for exploration of the realities of the individual.