Nietzschean Truth

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I have seen many interpretations of Nietzschean truth and will go about explaining two different point of views. I encourage anyone to give their own take on the matter as to which of the two interpretations is best suited for understanding Nietzsche and which one holds less doubt. If anyone feels the need to provide a converging or diverging opionion of a contrary or moderate perspective, i as many others, would gladly appreciate the sharing of knowledge within this thread of Nietzschean truth. We should, first of all, consider Nietzsche as a perspectvist when investigating into what he may determine truth as.

Nietzsche was always critical of an objective truth and denied that we should think there to be one right way of considering any matter or thing. Nietzsche realized that in doing so, our thinking becomes inflexible. Nietzsche abhors this inflexibility because it is contrary to a life-affirmation. One way NIetzsche took to the problem of truth, was claiming there to be many truths.

Some may argue that Nietzsche viewed truth as a plurality but not as definite. In other words, there are many versions of a proposed truth that do not bear weight objectively. I have seen and will use the example of an Elephant. We cannot get the picture, or perhaps a full understanding, of an Elephant by simply looking at its leg , tail or trunk. This translates to truth by revealing the idea that truth may not be fully represented or understood unless we look at it from multiple perspectives.
Some may argue against the above analysis. Some may argue that Nietzsche himself believed the very idea of truth to be a lie. Instead of an Elephant of many perspectives, truth is only the name given to the point of view(s) of the people who have the power to enforce their point of view. In accordance to this version of Nietzschean truth, the only reality is this will to power (enforcement of perspective) which places truth, congruent to morality, as just another small piece to the large puzzle of reality.

My personal take on Nietzschean truth holds firmly with the latter interpretation; but this is not my personal perspective of the concept of truth, as both interpretations hold substantial doubt. In understanding Nietzschean, we need to look at his body of work in its entirety, not only the perspectivist aspects of his thinking. The first interpretation is a paradigm of perspectivism, bt not necessarily Nietzschean truth. At first, Nietzsche is a perspectivist, but as his elaborations on the ubermensch and the will to power commence, it is clear that Nietzschean truth identifies more accurately with the second interpretation. We can see this version of truth effectively exemplified throughout NIetzche’s “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” (1873). Nietzche, as I hope most do, did not interpret truth as an object to be understood or represented as the first interpretation implies. Truth is a metaphysical concept which relies on those who can enforce their truth(s) through rationale, social status and/or temporal leverage.

I have several doubts regarding Nietzschean truth:

  1. Is not declaring the only truth as many truths a self-defeating paradox Nietzschean truth?

  2. If the only reality really is the will to power through perspectivism, how can we really know truth?

  3. Nietzsche states that the inflexibility of an objectivists mind is unhealthy, but when he describes what characterizes a healthy and unhealthy mind not exemplify subjective means to an end which demonstrates his own will to power at work? Does the answer to this possibility affirm or deny Nietzschean truth?

  4. Is Nietzschean truth, or a perspectivist’s truth, really what we should identify as ‘truth’?

I hope someone can give their opinion on which interpretation best suits Nietzschean truth and why. How do these interpretations coincide or deny your personal characterization(s) of truth? What is truth at its bare minimum? I have these doubts because I am struggling to formulate my own version of truth that is completely original. Nietzsche has interested me and many others and hopefully provides engaging discourse regarding this topic.

2

So, did Nietzsche argue that there are “many truths” with regard to mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical fact, the rules of language?

Should we not be rather inflexible regarding those things – those relationships – able to be demonstrated as applicable to all of us?

It would seem these “objective truths” exists as either the will of God or are rooted in the brute facticity of a godless universe.

Instead, it is only when Nietzsche posits No God [pertaining to is/ought], that we come face to face with a “perspectivist” frame of mind. Why? Because sans God there is no transcending font that allows mere mortals to differentiate between good and evil.

On the contrary, No God and we are “beyond good and evil”.

3

The ultimate reality is motion. Normally, when we say motion, we think of a thing that is moving, that is changing its location through time. This already presumes that matter is more fundamental than motion, or at the very last, that it is at the same level as motion. Nietzsche, however, thinks that motion is more fundamental than matter.

There is no-thing moving, there is only moving.

Nietzsche never really said it, but Walter Russell did, and I think it is true: matter is fast motion, space is slow motion.

This can then be generalized to mean that life is fast motion and that death is slow motion.

Fast motion is concentrated motion. It is a fusion of many distinct flows into one single super-flow.

Slow motion is decentered motion. It is a fission of a super-flow into many sub-flows.

“Will to power” refers to the concentrative (= centripetal) motion that assimilates.

“Perspectivism” is the idea that what we normally call by the name of “truth” is a specific product of assimilation of motion within human super-flow.

Thus, a sight of an elephant, for example, is a product of assimilation of motion within your own biological super-flow. There is no such a thing as elephant outside of your biological super-flow. There is only decentrative motion.

Nietzsche compares truts to lies in order to make a point that they are closely related. And they sure are. However, there is an important distinction between the two that he does not make but that has to be made.

What we call “truth” is a product of concentrative motion. What we call “lie” is a product of decentrative motion.

Nietzsche often speaks of men of ressentiment as being “dyspeptic”. Dyspepsia is another word for decentrative (= centrifugal) motion.

4

It’s not a self-defeating paradox but a confusion within people’s minds (i.e. difficulty in assimilation) that people do not want to own.

Truth is a product of assimilation. Thus, it only exists within mind. There is no truth outside of mind. Thus, there can be as many truths as there are different minds.

But that does not mean that truth is “whatever you want it to be”. Only that which is a product of assimilation can be considered to be one’s own truth.

Truth is a product of assimilated motion. That’s how you know truth. Falsehood, on the other hand, is a product of dissimilated motion.

5

Lol.

6

Truth is not a product of the enforcement of beliefs of those who have the power to enforce. Truth is not a product of “might makes right”.

Your understanding of the concept of power is too external. You understand power merely as that which produces a great effect on the external world. But weakness too can produce a great effect on the external world. Weakness, in Nietzsche’s sense, does not mean possessing little energy. What it means is wasting energy. It refers to the inability to generate energy. Thus, a weak person in Nietzsche’s sense of the word can have a lot of power in the sense of possessing a lot of energy, but what they do not have and cannot have is the ability to generate energy. They are purely radiative creatures, wasting what has been given to them by their ancestors.

Another way to understand this is thus: strong people produce energy through fusion (building up), weak people produce energy through fission (breaking down.)

Sun, for example, is strong because it produces its own energy using nuclear fusion, whereas Earth is weak because it produces no energy on its own but merely receives energy radiated by the Sun.

Now let’s get back to the main point which is that truth is not a product of the enforcement of beliefs of those who have the power to enforce.

This is easy to demonstrate.

If I randomly make any statement about the world (e.g. the sky is just a carpet surrounding Earth) and enforce it onto everyone else, the truth value of that statement will remain unaffacted.

Beliefs can only be considered true if they are a product of assimilation. If you simply “make shit up” you are not assimilating, but dissimilating, and so, nothing produced in this manner can be considered to be true.