Nietzsche thesis

Alright… After much debate i have finally found a philosophy statement that I should be able to argue… feel free to criticize me, and ill add your rebuttle to the counter-arguement… As well as going against me I would appreciate if someone had a few more idea’s to support me!

Nietzsche says there is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good faith in a cause, although he never realized that lying isn’t faithful to any cause what so ever it only attempts to briefly mask your unfaithfulness in the first place.

Well, lying must be faithful to some cause – there must be some purpose to the lie; no?

Consider, for example, a man and wife going to dinner. The wife gets all buttered up and asks her husband how she looks. In his brutally honest opinion, he is sick of the outfit and thinks she put on the make-up a tad thick, but he tells her she looks great. His perception of how she looks isn’t a matter of faith, more preference (subjective). So, he still has good faith that his wife is beautiful and can look beautiful – his ‘cause’ was his wife’s security, or self esteem; which leads ultimately to her personal happiness. His cause is ultimately their happiness together – good faith in a good cause without the implication of unfaithfulness.

what if she knows him so well she can tell when he’s lieng, and only asks to see whether he will lie or not.

Then his faith in a good cause is betrayed + shaken. Faith is about intentions and hopes before anything happens to confirm or otherwise, you’re talking about actual consequences. He still lied out of faith that she’d buy it, and that the outcome would be better than if he told the truth.

Faith is not something said of beliefs about an arbitrary number of propositions. People say beliefs about religious matter are faith, but that’s not necessarily true. If someone is absolutely certain that God exists, much like one might be absolutely certain that apples and oranges exists, then what reason is there to call the belief in God faith but not the belief in apples and oranges? Do we just arbitrarily limit the scope of the word faith to religious matters? I don’t think that’s right. I believe faith is something said of any proposition just in case it is believed in a certain way. This certain way of faith is the way of doubt. You can’t have faith unless you acknowledge and sincerely believe your belief has problems, that is to say, without believing there are facts about the world that seem inconsistent with the proposition you believe.

Faith is a way of latching onto a belief and holding it even though your better instincts and reason push you to drop it. The only kind of lying that takes place here is to one’s self. The purpose of lying is to not allow yourself to be dissociated from the belief, the cause. I’m not sure where Nietzsche says this, but I remember he makes the explicit point that people lie to themselves more than they lie to others.

Belief = confidence (or some degree of ‘certainty’) justified by evidence.

Faith = confidence (or some degree of ‘certainty’) without justification.