See the Truth, Perceive the Lie

alibaba321
See the truth, perceive the lie
Nietzsche explains nature as an overall relative to humans; he proposes a potent and significant explanation of the development of language and the realization of concepts. He achieves this by exploiting the successive effects on human awareness. He suggests that originally humans were "an artistically creating subject" as he puts it. Whose essential human determination is the construction of metaphors? Due to evolution, humankind developed a capacity to reason, distrust, remember, and control. Humans were driven by instincts which established themselves directly into inventive sounds, gestures and metaphors. Humans thereof signify the motivation, which ultimately develops into the base of language. As a result, humans manipulate this metaphor of understanding a stimulus, which may well vary from one to another; as it is totally subjective.
The ossification of language begins, these instinctual sounds are combined and expanded throughout a community, and arise to turn into ordered and solid words which in sequence combine into a progressively established language. In such manner, language turns into an unyielding, sum of common notions, perceptions, and ideas. Now, as soon as the reader gets comfortable with Nietzsche’s view of language. Everything changes, language arbitrates amongst the human perception and the reality being sensed, this transition happens when he explains that, in order for us to further study the development of concepts. We need consider that “every concept arises from the equation of unequal things” which he considers “cases which are never equal and thus altogether unequal”, in other words, every word immediately becomes a concept exactly to the extent that it is not intended to function as a reminder of the sole and fully individual unique experience to which it owes its source; but it would be better to say, a word converts into a concept in that it all together has to fit a myriad more or less related cases, in which situation if I consider only the boundaries proposed by Nietzsche, I conclude in harmonizing with his point of view.
In addition to constructing language, humans likewise form concepts for everything they come across. Nietzsche describes that concepts are groupings wherein the mind unconsciously collects analogous matters into, despite the fact that actually, each person is sole and individualized. Nietzsche gives the example “Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects”. Wherein one comprehends a leaf, were many have ever been alike who have similar physiognomies thus we classify each one as a leaf. This in my opinion is tremendously subjective as he proves it. Consider the Platonic realism, or even, in metaphysics, a universal. Where it is explained what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities; by Plato these are inherit to our existence and just scaled to what is grasped. But for Nietzsche, humans clutch everything in order to have a certain kind of organization and case inside their personal environment, crafting yet an additional sense of truth.
In distinction to the unexpected, unsettled realm of sense, in Nietzsche’s view, the structure of ideas exhibits solid uniformity and breathes out in reason the power and “coolness” which characterizes mathematics. As Nietzsche declares, no one who has sensed this calm gasp of reason will hardly be certain that even the concept that is as “bony, foursquare, and transposable as a die” is nonetheless just the “residue of a metaphor” , and that the impression which is involved in the creative conversion of a nerve stimulus into images, is the foundation of every single concept. But in this sense "truth" means “never violating the order of caste and class rank”. This relation of math, logic, and reason with “truth” is the only case were I wholly come to an agreement with Nietzsche, and wish to point out the importance, especially of math, as a tool used to understand the surrounding world. Nietzsche reasons that concepts do not occur in nature for the reason that each solitary creature and object is individualized and sole in one way or another and as a result, cannot be considered an additional foundation of truth. Essentially, Nietzsche trusts that we ought to take every incentive and consider it according to its distinct features as an alternative of grouping them into concepts. The conceptual order is stratified by "a pyramidal order according to castes and degrees, the creation of a new world of laws, privileges, subordinations, and clearly marked boundaries”. The conceptual direction challenges humanity as more dense, more general, better recognized, a “new world”. This new world as Nietzsche describes “seeks a new realm and another channel for its activity, and it finds this in myth and in art generally”. This determination constantly puzzles the conceptual categories and groups by bringing onward new changes, metaphors, and metonymies. It persistently shows a passionate need to alter the world which presents itself to humans, so that it will remain as “colorful, irregular, lacking in results and coherence, charming, and eternally new as the world of dreams”. But there is one detail left unnoticed by Nietzsche. The tendency of humans to rule over one’s kind. Governments, religions, all bring forth ranks, classes, castes. Every human under such parent, directly or indirectly is never able to freely sense “truth” in its most accessible form so to build upon it, which results in the imprisonment and trickery forced upon such humans into building up on virtual, man-made “truths”.
Nietzsche considers this environment of fixed concepts is in need of an insolent, inventive reply. “But man has an invincible inclination to allow himself to be deceived D and is, as it were, enchanted with happiness when the rhapsodist tells i him epic fables as if they were true, or when the actor in the theater acts more royally than any real king. So long as it is able to deceive without injuring, that master of deception, the intellect, is free; it is released from its former slavery and celebrates its Saturnalia.” he endorses an existential valor that declines the power of the conceptual order, its sanctions and embargos, and its inevitabilities. This transition is one from sanction to character. The artistic determination is not strictly defeated but hardly restrained. In other words, this enormous charter and laying of concepts to which the penurious man grips his entire existence so that he may reserve himself is but a framework and puppetry for the most daring acts of the freethinking intellect.
In a few words, I myself do not completely agree with Nietzsche on the matter of language and concepts. If for example we take into consideration any other intelligent species on our planet besides humans, we can clearly note that a form of communication exists between them, and furthermore there exist a primitive form of conceptualization. If for example dogs are considered, it is evident that dogs are clearly able to communicate with each other, even with humans at some degree; this could be a form of language (for them). Again dogs, can obviously distinguish a car from a human, they can even tell apart humans from one to another as a dog will not attack his owner, or even the owners friends and family, when guarding the house. In my opinion this demonstrates how it is natural to manifest language and concepts, which shows that it is nature’s choice to be projected to us in such manner.
Nietzsche’s sole target, in my understanding, is to demonstrate that language, concepts, truths, and lies are all unreal, just a view, since humans were the ones who fashioned language and in sequence, concepts, which in Nietzsche’s opinion do not truly exist in nature. Instead, we use it to sort and organize our own surroundings while using it as a way to cooperate with other humans. But if we really wish to be so subjective about our surroundings then even Nietzsche is wrong. If we really aim to judge what is true and what is not, then we should consider a higher form of perception, our brain itself. We see through our eyes, but are these images the actual view of this world? We hear with our ears, but are these sounds really there? We smell with our nose, but is this the actual scent? We feel when we touch, but is there really something there?