Truth

A truth that everyone doesn’t accept…DO YOU? A topic for some people is the stain of society, a truth that many don’t want to accept, a consequence of society and therefore is not accepted. For us is just a lifestyle and we couldn’t judge it like a mistake. Homosexuality has existed since ancient time, homosexuality didn? t appear ten years ago, it isn’t fashionable or a disease; and then what is homosexuality?

In our opinion it’s a normal condition that the people have had to accept like all society. Homosexuality could be seen as an attitude towards life, everyone has a freedom to be as you want to be, even animal could be homosexual, everything stars for our birth, on one side is matter of hormones feeling attraction to the same sex since childhood, when the mind becomes curious.

In biological perspective, it isn’t bad that a person who born with these trend, and has accepted himself and his condition, and he just decides to live through his life in company a person of the same sex; what is wrong is a father’s repression and the close mind and traditions of many people with “normal” tendencies, that people try to mold the other, whether religious, political, family etc, and its wrong just because that repression is what generates fears, confusions and doubts.

On the other hand society couldn’t judge homosexual people just because exist a logical possibility that this person was physically and mentally abused in their childhood, or may be violated, all these criminal acts can be committed by a “normal” or heterosexual person, so why we judge homosexuals if a normal person could be a beast. Society also said that not have the same education a child who is raised by same-sex couples that is raised by partners of both sexes, because the child will need a father and a mother.

To this, highlight those children who have died are the parent when they were young and not because they lacked the parent have to have a bad education. Or, highlight those who are children of single mothers and now are what? Now they are important people with good education. Homosexuality is not a disease or a virus, is a truth you must learn to believe, is present in life, everyday, and even more present in society. Homosexual people are not beasts as they are in some cases, terrorists, thieves, criminals, then why judge the person who loves the same sex and no other who does real harm to society?

“Backdrop addresses cowboy” by Margaret Atwood Creating a masterful poetic movement through the American mythos, Atwood skewers “manifest destiny” by embodying the voice of the Other, the discarded “I am. ” Writing political poetry that artfully confronts dominant ideology – thus exposing the motivation and effects of misrepresentation – is a difficult challenge. The process can easily be derailed by temptations to write strident, overly didactic verse that elevates sentiment above nuance and craft.

While passion is certainly important, it is the poem itself that transforms political intent into a dynamic act of oppositional literature. To be effective as a statement, it must first be effective as a poem. In “Backdrop addresses cowboy,” Margaret Atwood delivers a scathing indictment of imperialist power that, through its elegant craft and conceptual framework, is also a breathtakingly vibrant poem. The core message, a potent denunciation of reckless power from the perspective of those who suffer its consequences, is simultaneously unequivocal and oblique.

Though Atwood’s indictment is readily apparent, close reading reveals a brilliant poetic foundation comprised of nuanced language, double-meanings, and a metaphorical structure that satirically lambasts American exceptionalism by skewering the individualist ‘cowboy’ myth with imagery from its own construction. In short, Atwood’s poem succeeds as a political statement because she allows the demands of exceptional poetry to drive its articulation. From the outset, Atwood chooses language that economically expands the meaning of each phrase.

For example, “Starpgled,” the poem’s first word, focuses a personification of ‘cowboy mentality’ into a subtle critique of nationalist manipulation. In addition, other connotations come to mind, like “starry-eyed,” or the gaudiness of “pgles. ” Even elements internal to the American anthem apply: bombs bursting, a nation under siege, victory against all odds. Though speculative, a reading like this is supported by the poem’s representation of a cowboy who violently protects his own interests in an imagined landscape filled with heroes and villains.

Regarded as a heroic figure by the myth of manifest destiny, he is conversely seen as a reckless tyrant by those who suffer the effects of his violence. The first stanza reveals a comic figure – “Starpgled cowboy” sauntering through his child-like fantasy while pulling a prop from the Hollywood simulacrum that supports his myth. Atwood complicates this image in the second stanza when she introduces violence to her “almost- /silly” characterization of the mythical “West. Using a line break to accentuate the transition, she plays the impact of a stand-alone line against the expanded meaning of its grammatical context. Isolated, line six (“you are innocent as a bathtub”) relates directly to the opening stanza’s child-like caricature, forming an aphoristic trope that is both interesting and oddly mundane. Accentuated by the break, the line’s reading adds dramatic nuance when its sentence unfolds into a broader meaning: “you are innocent as a bathtub / filled with bullets. Contrasting the ironic character of opposed readings (innocent and not-at-all-innocent) within the space of shared words, Atwood foreshadows an overall conceptual structure in which “backdrop” refers both to the simulacrum of Hollywood sets and to the genuine environment of a beleaguered world. Despite its obvious quantitative reference, “bathtub / filled with bullets” also infers a Hollywood cliche – the bullet-riddled bathtub – that reinforces a theme inherent to the myth: if you’re not ready to fight, they’ll get you when you’re vulnerable.

An inference like this reflects back on the subtle statement of the earlier use of “starpgled”: a nation that imagines itself as besieged can use that camouflage as justification for militarism and imperialist expansion. Again, supported by the poem, these significations demonstrate a complicated structure that works internal logic to frame an effective (and damning) political statement. Oppositions and Conceptual Structure This is a poem about power and disenfranchisement.

It employs oppositions as a conceptual device to turn manifest destiny on its head. Exploding the cowboy myth by use of its own imagery and overarching theme of heroes and villains, Atwood draws complex parallels to American exceptionalism, a black and white ideology that drains color from alternative perspectives. By use of satire, she effectively removes the shroud that justifies questionable actions as being both inevitable and heroic. As stated in the title, the voice of this poem is that of “backdrop” (i. . the environment of scenes portrayed by the myth and recontextualized by the poem) addressing “cowboy. ” The expanding focus on “cowboy” and his violent milieu reaches a pivot in the fifth stanza when the Hollywood backdrop is fully exposed, and the speaker finally reveals herself. Using the word “ought” (implying mandatory obligation), she questions her expected role on the set (passive, “hands clasped / in admiration”) while asserting, “I am elsewhere. Spoken as “backdrop,” and expanded in the final stanzas, this statement implies a conceptual flip wherein “backdrop” becomes subject, inhabiting an environment desecrated by the reckless actions of a transient “cowboy”. Simulacra In the essay “Simulacra and Simulation,” philosopher Jean Baudrillard states, “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth–it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true. ” While Baudrillard perhaps overstates his case, the point is clear: actions instigated and justified by myth play an undeniable role in shaping both material and social reality.

Applying this concept to Atwood’s poem, manifest destiny can be seen acting as ‘truth’ in its own regard – concealing no truth, because instead it has replaced truth with artifice. Accordingly, “cowboy” becomes backdrop to the postmodern world from which Atwood addresses the genuine existence of other, more substantial truths conveniently denied by myth. The Alternative Power of Effective Verse As representation itself, replete with borrowed imagery and the detritus of experienced consequence, this poem enacts a self-reflexive reversal of the social forces it speaks against.

With a vocabulary full of bullets, Atwood crafts a poem that stands the test of both ‘truth’ and time – yet does so peacefully, through an act of oppositional literature. Whether her poem is construed as feminist, environmentalist, post-colonial, or just-plain-political (from a Canadian perspective), its verity is affirmed by continued relevance. Written in the mid-seventies, it speaks just as powerfully in our current era. In terms of effective poetics, how good is that?

A cross represents many things to different people. Some view it as simply a‘t’. For others, it is their way of life. Many in America feel this way. A cross is the main symbol for Christianity, and as Christianity is the main religion in America, it can be considered a symbol of American culture. A cross is more than just a t-shaped piece of wood. A cross is the representative symbol of American culture. One morning, a long while ago, there was a man. This was before crosses had the present day meaning. He was to be crucified on a wood-shaped t contraption.

It was called a cross. Forwarding to the present day, when most people think of or hear the word cross, they think of a battered old wood piece that is in the shape of a lower case t. While that is generally what a cross will come in, it can take the form of many things. It can be made of metal, wood, plastic, cardboard, or even by crossing one’s fingers. A cross can be fancy, new, battered, or old. No matter the look of it, though, the cross always seems the same in the hearts and minds of those who cherish it.

Perhaps the most thought provoking image of a cross is when Christ is on it, nails in his feet and hands, with a pierced wound in his side, his head bowed to heaven. The cross is both a symbol of happiness and sadness. One of the main reasons that pilgrims and settlers came over to the future site of the great United States of America was to avoid religious persecution in their homelands. America was the place of all things new and reborn, and what better way to practice their outcast religions. Most of the religions, however, shared one thing in common: they were all Christian-based religions.

They just had different ways of practicing how to worship their Lord, Savior, and God. Being in the church-run country of England, however, was difficult because of these different practices. They united and came under the banner of one object, the cross. Many people view the cross as excluding and not open to everyone everywhere. This is far from the truth. The cross accepts any and all who wish to worship under it and be one with the rest of the Christian nation. Those that pervert the word and message of the cross and its religion aren’t the true bearers of Jesus’ word and message.

Sometimes the cross is perceived as a bat that beats the message into your head and does physical damage to them. This is far from the truth. A cross is like a pillow, that can be snuggled and used for friendly pillow fights, but it always comforts when it is needed. A cross needs to be thought less of as an animate object, and more of an inanimate object that encompasses a broad scope of items. One of these objects could be considered a pen and quill. When the founding fathers of the United States assembled in Philadelphia, they penned the words “endowed by their Creator. While Creator can have a broad variety of meanings depending on background, upbringing, and current value system, one can infer the implied meaning of what that statement was supposed to mean. America had religious upbringings. If it wasn’t for religion, America could possibly not be here today, or not be as successful as it is. The pilgrims could have stayed in England and Mainland Europe, and America may not have been settled until a much later date. In current times, many will argue that the cross is an obsolete and inaccurate representation of American culture.

While it is true that church attendance and overall religiousness of the country is going down, the greater majority, even ones who don’t attend church on a regular basis, still view the cross as a symbol of greater things. It symbolizes the resolve of the American people. When in doubt, they look up, hoping for a sign of greater things to come. A cross may not be as fancy as a tasseled flag, or as popular as a roaring lion, but do those items have a deeper meaning to it? Americans have never been about being the fanciest, or being the best.

Americans care about what is important to them, and they fight for it. Present day fights to keep the cross and other Christian-related materials are a constant effort. Many should re-read the Declaration of Independence, and see the word Creator. It may refresh and jog their memories. The cross is one of the symbols of the American culture. Religion plays a large part in many lives in the country, and this is a representation of that. Perhaps if more people come under the wings of the cross, America can be great again.

The Incompatibility of Happiness and Truth – Dystopia Brave New World is full of characters who do everything they can to avoid facing the truth about their own situations. The almost universal use of the drug soma is probably the most pervasive example of such willful self-delusion. Soma clouds the realities of the present and replaces them with happy hallucinations, and is thus a tool for promoting social stability. But even Shakespeare can be used to avoid facing the truth, as John demonstrates by his insistence on viewing Lenina through the lens of Shakespeare’s world, first as a Juliet and later as an “impudent strumpet. According to Mustapha Mond, the World State prioritizes happiness at the expense of truth by design: he believes that people are better off with happiness than with truth. Soma: The drug soma is a symbol of the use of instant gratification to control the World State’s populace. It is also a symbol of the powerful influence of science and technology on society. What are these two abstract entities that Mond juxtaposes? It seems clear enough from Mond’s argument that happiness refers to the immediate gratification of every citizen’s desire for food, sex, drugs, nice clothes, and other consumer items.

It is less clear what Mond means by truth, or specifically what truths he sees the World State society as covering up. From Mond’s discussion with John, it is possible to identify two main types of truth that the World State seeks to eliminate. First, as Mond’s own past indicates the World State controls and muffles all efforts by citizens to gain any sort of scientific or empirical truth. Second, the government attempts to destroy all kinds of “human” truths, such as love, friendship, and personal connection.

These two types of truth are quite different from each other: objective truth involves coming to a definitive conclusion of fact, while a “human” truth can only be explored, not defined. Yet both kinds of truth are united in the passion that an individual might feel for them. As a young man, Mustapha Mond became enraptured with the delight of making discoveries, just as John loves the language and intensity of Shakespeare. The search for truth then, also seems to involve a great deal of individual effort, of striving and fighting against odds.

The very will to search for truth is an individual desire that the communal society of Brave New World, based as it is on anonymity and lack of thought, cannot allow to exist. Truth and individuality thus become entwined in the novel’s thematic structure. Mustapha Mond Towards the end of the novel the reader gets more information about Mustapha Mond. John, Bernard and Helmholtz are taken to his office because of the scandal in the hospital. Mustapha Mond is one of the World Controllers and responsible for Western Europe.

In the conversation with John he tells him that he was interested in science some years ago and because he was too clever for the society of Brave New World he had to choose between living on an island for the rest of his life and conforming to the lifestyle in that society, which was totally rebuilt after the Nine Years’ War and the Great Economic Collapse. He decided to conform and to use the chances the position of one of the World Controllers offers. Nevertheless he kept some of the books that are prohibited.

When John who grew up with Shakespeare’s work asks him for the reason of this prohibition, he says that the government of Brave New World doesn’t want the people to be attracted by old things, especially books, because they should only like new things. In addition to that, the inhabitants wouldn’t understand books like “Othello”, because they live in totally different circumstances. They are happy, they aren’t afraid of anything, they get what they want and they never want what they can’t get.

Brave New World is a stable world and for understanding tragedies like “Othello” you need social instability. John criticises that art has been given up, but Mond explains to him that this is the price you have to pay for happiness. By giving John the example of an experiment where Alphas had to do even manual work all alone, but failed, he also explains the importance of the caste system, which is necessary for stability. Later, the two men talk about God and why he doesn’t exist in Brave New World.

Mond says, that people don’t turn to God any longer, because they no longer have to suffer from illnesses, inconveniences, unhappiness, fears etc. so they can be independent of God and religion. John claims that God is the reason for everything noble and heroic, but Mustapha Mond tells him that there is no need for nobility or heroism, because everyone is conditioned: they can’t help doing what ought to be done and this is so pleasant that they don’t feel the need to complain about anything.

And if something unpleasant happens, there is always soma to make you happy again! Mustapha Mond is not able to convince John of his ideas and principles – in the end of their conversation John says that he claims the right to be unhappy, to become old and ugly, to have cancer and all sorts of illnesses, to have too little to eat, to be tortured…. so John claims the right to live like we live now.

Science and Society Is life fact or fiction? One could look at science and society in the same manner. Meaning that there is an ideal subject, one subject could be the truth and one could be deception. Science, in my opinion, is the truth. For example, science is based on facts and numbers and figures, these never deter from the truth if correctly applied in their own fields of study. The term for society states that it is a group of people who shape their lives in aggregated and patterned ways that distinguish their group from other groups.

Society can take a number of shapes and forms and it is never the same in any place in the world, politics and economy differ yet society is unified as a whole in the larger spectrum. (“Alchemy”), George Orwell (“What Is Science? ”), Carl Sagan (“Why We Need to Understand Science”), and Lawrence Krauss (“School Boards Want to ‘Teach to the Controversy. ’ What Controversy? ” have different points of views in each of their understandings of science and society, yet one thing that sticks out in their essays as a related is that society in some way, shape, or form should be informed and open to more knowledge of the sciences.

Carl Sagan’s’ (“Why We Need to Understand Science”) was one of my favorite pieces due to the fact that he did in his own opinions and views yet what stuck out in my mind is that he added data and facts into his piece. I believe his piece best describes science as his primary term because he is trying to get people to understand the importance of why society should look at science this way and why. People like numbers because they are either comforting or they make people realize something that was never really thought of before because it wasn’t as solid or tangible in their minds.

He wrote his delved more into the root of the problem with society and science on both aspects. He also concluded with a suggestion to the solution of the problem of our society’s lack of knowledge in science. Sagan preaches his point and is very to the point in all aspects of his writing although it wasn’t as logical as the other essays I think the emotion he put into his piece was what won me over because of the passion of wanted to get his point across to the readers is usually the same difference of what gets people interested in the knowledge of science.

Lewis Thomas (“Alchemy”), primarily states in his essay that of the work of alchemists. He indicates that their seemingly todays silly work of trying to turn metal into gold or their secret society of alchemist did not go wasted. They actually set a lot of today’s sciences up for advancement and great lengths of achievement. Thomas made a clear and concise history of the Alchemists such as the origins being traced back to the ancient time of the Arabic, Latin, and Greek.

He added the meaning of the work that Alchemists were trying to achieve such as there only being one particle in the universe that was the true meaning of existence in all shapes or forms. He also argued to downfalls of the Alchemist such as the time they spent on dead ends in their pursuit of science, all the writing and work they proposed that was written in secretive language, the bans of their work due to it being related to black magic.

Yet, in many positive aspects the Alchemists did pave the way for other sciences to be studied successfully, such as physics or chemistry. This got people interested and helped to spur conversation, debate, and helped bring questions to one another to spur thought. On a very low level this work did get science in society started yet it was only amongst the scientist community. None of the work can be understood by people of normal or medial knowledge.

Yet again on could argue that among certain interested parties for instance student, the subject of alchemy could be seen as an interesting subject, therefore the student would want to read about alchemist and then possibly see what the fuss is about and want to take a look at what works interested alchemist and would try to learn to study aspects of their work such as physics and chemistry in a broad sense. Thomas does make certain valid points yet the downfall is that this type of science would not be relatable to the masses it is above their heads.

This type of science in society can almost always be only attainable to those in the field of science and only reel in a few of outsiders in society. George Orwell (“What Is Science? ”), writes and essay of very profound aspects of science. For instance his piece he defines what science is and also argues the differences between sciences in my opinion for his readers to get both sides of what he is trying to describe so one can form an opinion of their own.

This is the point he is trying to get across to his readers, to be able for one to form his own opinion about science. Therefore they are learning and gain knowledge of the subject of science in some way shape or form. I agree with many facts of Orwell’s piece, for instance he states that anyone educated can describe to you what science may mean to them whether it’s a specific or broad term. Does the knowledge of science make one smarter than the next, not necessarily?

Vice versa in the sense that someone who was less knowledgeable on science then became knowledgeable could have less intelligence about the subject than “an illiterate peasant”, or that this knowledge may do more harm than good. After this seemingly contradictory argument he contradicts himself more by stating that society should be educated in science to be able to grasp the concept of being able to possess a “rational, skeptical, experimental habit of mind. This to me means that one should have a firm grasp on the knowledge of science and be able to carry a conversation of facts data and look at science in broad and insightful aspects. I don’t think this work is as strong as Carl Sagan’s work because he is trying to please the masses and preach about two things at the same time which I feel is untruthful because he is trying to reel in a larger crowd so to speak, which I lost interest in. Lawrence Krauss (“School Boards Want to ‘Teach to the Controversy. What Controversy? ”) describes how schools across the board should teach other methods of science in order for one to search for their own truth or the whole truth of their meaning of science. He relates his main subject on religion vs. science and how the church and science is constantly arguing about the fact of who is right and who is wrong about evolution, in depth the Big Bang theory or that every human is genetically related from the first organism.

As interesting as Krauss’s point about science were I found his points to more centered only around the church and sciences point of view in the matter, I only dismissed it because it didn’t relate to the masses and it was a very limited piece to give readers much knowledge beyond what was stated and I could not personally gather anything out of it for my own purposes other than the ending quote which if he wrote around this subject I probably would have chosen it, To search thoroughly for the truth involves a searching of souls as well as of spectra. Then again souls are not an indefinite thing, science because it is based on facts and numbers, so in theory this does not make sense and is weaker than Carl Sagan’s piece in general because it does not really evoke thought to the reader. I think the most relatable thing between all the pieces was that amongst specific likeminded people there will always be debate and conclusions will be drawn based on their facts and that these certain societies can communicate efficiently with each other. On a larger scale society as a whole should learn more about science in order to attain basic understanding of knowledge of science.

Personally I think that basic understanding of the knowledge of science is attainable and should be learned amongst society because education in America is lacking while others are racing ahead in almost every aspect of education, reading, writing, math, and science. Education should be important to everyone for the simple fact that science has gotten our society to the point it is today. Some aspects may be good and some bad for instance the good may include being able to function in an advanced society with buildings and cars, advancements in medicine allowing humans to live longer and healthier.

Yet again with our advancement we also have made negative aspects for ourselves such as being able to genetically mass produce beef that goes into fast food restaurants all over the country that has made 70% of Americans obese, or the fact that because of our advancement in medicine which allow most humans to live longer or cure them from most ailments, natural selection has come to a stop and has allowed the weaker of humans to spawn and created other like humans.

I envision that I would prefer to live in a world with science rather than a primitive society, my answer is pure and simple there is nothing profound about it, this world with science is what I am used to and I wouldn’t want to change this.

Perhaps in a positive light I would want to change science to further advancement science as we know it, for example finding a cure for cancer, or better yet finding out what in the brain or body creates mental illness or to add or subtract DNA from fetuses in order to create a “perfect” human one free from disease. I believe my ideas towards science would actually better society because it would benefits them in ways that would make them possibly more interest in science due to the controversy and debates it may cause.

Eli Tanenbaum Ms. Anderson English 3H, Set 4 22 January 2013 Midterm Essay Sometimes the truth has the ability to imprison one’s self; other times it can set one free. Either way, the truth is something that can decide one’s fate. Society often decides what is true and what is false; however, sometimes these truths are indeed a lie. In order to come to the realization that what was once perceived true is actually a lie, one must embark on a trek to discover the genuine truth.

As evidenced by Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible, and Billy Collins’ poem “Introduction to Poetry”, it is one’s responsibility to seek his or her own truth and therefore control his or her own destiny. Guy Montag lives in a society where the majority accepts a lie as the truth. Montag and others are taught to believe that books cause harm and desolation to the people around them, and should therefore be banned from society. After his wife Mildred’s attempted suicide, Montag realizes that although people in his society are alive, they are not truly living.

He assumes that in the absence of books, his society has become completely absent of emotion and he yearns to discover why. Through this journey, Montag encounters an old English professor by the name of Faber who explains that it is not books that Montag desires, but the important qualities that they teach instead. He learns that books allow people to obtain information, express emotion, and think freely. After uncovering the truth, Montag then decides that it is his destiny to restore these necessary qualities, and bring life to a seemingly dead society.

The idea of witchcraft has consumed the minds of the people in the town of Salem, and while some decide to fall victim to the mind control of society, others attempt to remain truthful to their moral beliefs. As the accusations of witchcraft escalate, some people in Salem fail to seek the courage that it takes to remain truthful. These people decide to lie and avoid being hanged or imprisoned while the others who decide to tell the truth and become victims of a corrupt society.

John proctor refuses to compromise his moral values and decides to speak the truth and thus deny any witchcraft activity. This decision ultimately determines Proctor’s fate and allows him to die an honest man. Proctor’s discovery that confessing to a perceived truth is of greater consequence than telling the actual truth allows Proctor to die with dignity and honor. Poem’s are unique in the way that there is no one true answer because poems contain ambiguous text that allows different people to take away different meanings.

The truth or the meaning of a poem lies behind one’s individual interpretation and therefore it is each reader’s responsibility to discover it on his or her own rather than simply being told it. Discovering the truth behind a poem can be a painstaking task but it can also be enjoyable. No matter the difficulty of the process, discovering one’s own truth is necessary and fulfilling. By realizing the meaning of a poem, the reader has the ability to take this meaning and apply it to his or her own life and learn the true importance of poetry.

In the end, John Proctor, Guy Montag and all readers of poetry discover that the truth is a valuable entity that requires great responsibility. The truth is something that cannot only benefit oneself, but also the society in which he or she lives in. The truth has the ability to shed knowledge and joy, and should therefore be discovered by everyone. As a result, one should always take part in his or her own journey to discover the truth about the society in which he or she lives in; otherwise, one never knows if they are living a life of lies in which society has proclaimed to be true.

1. Introduction

In the following I will consider Nietzsche’s essay ‘On truth and Lies in a nonmoral sense’.  First I will look at a small section of this to work out his views on language, then I will examine the whole of the essay in order to consider his use of metaphor, metonymy and anthropomorphisms in detail. This examination will lead, by way of a consideration of the ways in which he uses metaphor and other devices, into a consideration of his arguments regarding the nature of language. I will put forward the view that his interpretation of the nature of language undermines itself as it seeks to put itself forward as a truth while denying that truth exists as such.

2. Truth and Language

First, I consider the passage which starts “What then is truth”.  In this passage, Nietzsche wants to convey the flexible and changing quality of language.  The statements which we take as truth, straightforward and easy to understand, were in fact originally more akin to poetry in their relationship with how things really are. Language which was originally used in a metaphoric, metonymic or anthropomorphic way has lost the vital force of the original statements, the original power of the symbolic use of language has become lost and only a shell remains.

Over time the non-literal original sense has become literal so we take the words as a straightforwardly true or false statement.   In the original use of language, people could understand that the terms were not meant literally but a rich and evocative picture of how things are. This richness has become lost and we are left only with the empty structural force of the language, which we interpret as simple truth.

This is my overall understanding of this paragraph. However it is difficult to paraphrase accurately, due to the richness of the language Nietzsche uses. We could in fact say that his contention that “truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions” is couched in terms which are in themselves heavily metaphorical, rather than the propositions which would be easy to paraphrase.

Truth, in the paragraph in question, is ‘a movable host’, an ‘illusion’, something which is ‘drained of sensuous force’ and a ‘coin’.  The associations of these are rich, but not necessarily reconcilable. A coin, for instance, is not an illusion as it is an everyday part of economic exchange.  Therefore, the most important facet of Nietzsche’s argument would seem to be that it is not a conventional argument; rather he uses poetry and metaphor to demonstrate the nature or language, rather than explain it in a step by step way.

I now turn to the larger essay of which this quotation is a part.  There are a host of metaphors, metonymies and anthropomorphisms in it[1], and as pointed out in the question it is easy to overlook these.   I will pick out a few of these to discuss why it is easy to overlook them.  Part of the reason would seem to be that the text is simply so dense with them. In some sentences,  several of these devices being crammed into it. Take, for example, the first few sentences (1).  “World history” is described as “arrogant and mendacious”; an anthropomorphic device ascribing human characteristics to an abstract notion.

Nature, likewise, is said to “draw a few breaths” which combines anthropomorphism with the metaphor of taking a while to pause.  Later in the same paragraph, nature is said to “swell up like a balloon” which again combines metaphor and anthropomorphism.  As well as the denseness with which these devices are packed, it is also the case that a more obvious device masks one in the same sentence which is less flamboyant.  For example, in the sentence quoted immediately above, nature is also described as “reprehensible“: a quality which properly speaking should really be ascribed to humans only. This less noticeable anthropomorphism somehow comes across as a literal statement. I suspect this is part of Nietzsche’s intention, as it shows the way in which language can slip from being thoroughly poetic to less obviously so.

The structure of his essay works to underline this. Passages of a less metaphorical or metonymic nature occur in between passages where the use of these devices, together with anthropomorphism, is dense.   For example, Nietzsche discusses (4) how metaphor is involved in every step of verbalization and conceptualization from sense perception to abstract terms. This discussion is couched in reasonably straightforward language without obvious use of metaphor and the like.

Passages such as these are, however, set against ones in which the language is dense with poetic devices, where, as Nietzsche says there is “a moveable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms” (5).   Such poetic passages require a different type of reading, one in which we are forced to recognize language as the dense and image-packed structure Nietzsche would have us believe it is in its entirety. In other words, I would contend that the mixing of metaphorical passages with more ’straightforward’ ones is a device intended to remind us of the inherently metaphorical nature of all words.

Another way in which Nietzsche uses the devices reinforces the above. The metaphorical, metonymical and anthropomorphic passages provide a vivid and strong illustration of his points in the more straightforward sections. For example, he talks about man’s need for deception (2) “a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity”. The visual image thus constructed powerfully reiterates the later points he makes about the nature of truth and the value it plays for mankind.   He appeals, as it were, to both our intellect and our senses.

Section two of the essay is rich  in unusual use of metaphor and other devices.  Perhaps the most dense passage occurs at the end, where Nietzsche talks about intuitive (as opposed to rational) man.  He piles device upon device to reiterate the way he portays intuitive man. He is said to “reap” “a harvest” from his intuition, but Nietzsche takes the unusual step of elaborating this metaphor in another direction, for what man reaps is “continually inflowing illumination”, a metaphor one would associate with a river, not a harvest.

I believe Nietzsche compounds metaphors in this way in order to demonstrate that the sense of what he is saying is not straightforward but has depths and resonates in different directions. It is also unusual that these two metaphors hide another, at the beginning of the sentence, where man is said to be “standing in the midst of a culture”.  Here one could almost overlook the metaphoric nature of the expression, as it is close to a common-sense expression. I’d suggest that here Nietzsche is using the more unusual figures of speech as a way of alerting  us to the metaphorical nature of all expression, including cases like this where the metaphor has almost passed into ordinary use.

Another remarkable passage starts section two. Here the scientist is described as building his “hut”, which is equated with his understanding of the world. The imagery here is particularly rich and evocative, drawing up a visual image of a towering structure.  It would seem that Nietzsche uses such particularly visual imagery to introduce his discussion of dreams, for the words evoke images akin to dreaming consciousness.

A final point I would make about the use of metaphorical devices centers on his use of different metaphors (in this case with an animal theme) to reinforce his points.  For example, when talking about the development of conceptualization, he compares it to both building upon a spider’s web and to a bee’s building with wax (7).  Earlier in the same passage he talks of this conceptualization in the context of the Roman gods.   Because he repeats metaphors taken from levels ‘above’ and ‘below’ that of man, it is as if he is creating an over-metaphor which draws attention to man’s nature and its distinctness from the animal kingdom and that of the gods, which in turn serves to reinforce his notion of the subjectivity of language and perception.

I now turn to the general points made about language in the essay as a whole. Firstly, I will give an overview of the essay itself before turning to a critique of Nietzsche’s points.  The essay divides into two parts, and the tone of each is slightly different. The first contains more argument of a philosophical nature, although in the context of rhetorical passages, whereas the second is more lyrical in tone throughout.  In part one, Nietzche discusses man’s intellect. We think we are the centre of the universe, and that our knowledge is a special thing, but so do the most lowly members of the animal kingdom.

Our nature is inherantly deceptive, not aimed towards truth, however due to social constraints we feel it necessary to embrace truth in order to become part of a social world.  He then turns to the nature of truth, which for Neitzsche is inherantly illusionary and based on metaphor. Looking at the way in which we come to understand the world, this is based not on an actual coherence to things in themselves but an illusion,  even at the most basic perceptual stage.  Likewise concepts and abstractions have no inherant connection to the ‘real’ state of the world.

The moral impulse towards truth is nothing more than a Darwinian survival of the fittest.  Man cannot escape the trap of his inherantly metaphorical viewpoint, which is also specific to the human species alone. However, to give ourselves a sense of security, we have to forget the metaphorical nature of understanding and take our experience as an experience of how things really are. Nietzsche concludes part one with a summary of the subjectivity of man’s experience.

Part two has a different tone, being more poetical overall.  He starts by dismissing the claims of science to impart general truths which hold for all time. He reiterates that the drive to metaphor is the most important. Dreams are a way in which we can begin to understand the richness of the creative and metaphorical drive for what it is, a drive which is distinct from the scientific, rational one. In this section, Nietzsche seems to be hinting, against the first section, that through dreams and art man can perhaps come to an understanding of the role metaphor plays in language and truth.

Nietzsche makes several general assertions about the nature of language in his essay. His foremost point is that language is inherently metaphorical.  As pointed out, he reiterates this by use of the type of device he believes is a model of language.   This, I think, is the central theme of his essay, and one which, by his use of language, he puts across most subtlety.  However, there seems to be a problem with his view point.  He seems to be taking the viewpoint of someone who can say what is true and what is not.

He wants to say that truth as we perceive it is an illusion, but does not explain why we should believe his illusion rather than any other.  He does not merely want to suggest by poetic devices that truth is an illusion, but to argue that this is the case.   He wants to do philosophy, not poetry, and philosophy is concerned with using rational argument to put forward ones own case, and dismiss opposing views.  The problem is that any argument he uses to support his own view also works against this view.

I believe Nietzsche’s other points are flawed also.  Man’s nature, he contends, is to deceive himself, and this, he postulates, is for a Darwinian end, the survival of the individual (2).    The first instinct of the individual is self-preservation, and hence to deceive. However, social forces come into play; if man wants to exist happily with others he cannot be seen to tell lies, that is, to disagree with the herd.  Therefore the desire for truth comes into play.

Truth is useful to society. Man does not desire truth for his own sake, as the philosophers say, rather he “desires the pleasant, life-preserving consequences of truth” (3).   Nietzsche thus postulates a socially driven theory of truth, where the quest for knowledge is an illusion, and social reality the only reality.  My argument with this would be it fails to explain cases where individuals act in a way which they know will make their position in their social group uncomfortable and unpleasant, and do so because they want to find the truth.

Nietzsche talks about the way in which humans develop language to argue that metaphor is always present from original sense perceptions (3-4).  He says “a nerve stimulus is transferred into an image: first metaphor“ (4).  After this, he says, each subsequent stage is also built upon metaphor. However, I would argue that in order to distinguish a metaphor as such, we need to have a concept of how things really are, in order that we can know when descriptions are metaphorical (that is, not literal).  If, as Nietzsche argues, metaphor exists from the very first act of perception, then how can we make sense of a distinction between metaphor and non-metaphor?

There is also, I believe, a confusion in the essay about the status of what Nietzsche proposes. He suggests that man had to erase the understanding of the metaphorical nature of language from his consciousness in order to live with any sense of security, and also that if man could escape from the confines of this prison-like viewpoint, “his “self-consciousness” would be immediately destroyed” (8).  This suggests that man is permanently trapped in the view of language as a truth bearing vehicle, unable to see things as they really are.

This is problematic in two ways. First, that Nietzsche obviously thinks he can stand outside this language trap in order to explain how others are bound by it. Secondly, he seems to suggest at the same time that man can come to the realization that the nature of language and indeed life is other than he believes it to be, which assumes that the prison of language is one that can, and should be overcome.  This confusion seems at least partly to derive from the two sections of the essay, which are different in tone. In the second section he seems to be saying that art is one way in which man can free himself from the confines of language and “confuse the conceptual categories and cells by bringing forward new transferences, metaphors, and metonymies” (10).

3. Conclusion

In the above, I have attempted a brief analysis of Nietzsche’s essay. I have attempted to bring out his central point, that language is essentially metaphorical, and also to look his other discussions of the nature language and truth plays for man.  I have looked at the ways in which he uses metaphor, metonymy and anthropomorphism in different ways, each of which underline his central ideas about language.  I have tried to show that, for me, his arguments although subtle and dense are ultimately not coherent, as he tries to step outside the framework of metaphor to explain how things ‘really are’.

I also suggest that although Nietzsche is attempting philosophy, to convince the reader that he has a valid thesis and to present the argument for this, it is difficult to answer his case fully as he uses the resources of a poet as well as a philosopher.  It is not within the brief to use poetry and metaphor to answer Nietzsche, so there’s a sense in which I am unable to answer him on his own terms.

[1]  briefly, a metaphor is when one thing is compared to another by saying “a is b” or similar, for example “my heart is a fountain”, where b is something which a is not normally literally said to be.  Metonymy is where a feature of something is used as a shorthand for the thing itself. For example, a school child might refer to a particular teacher as ’big nose’.  Finally anthropomorphism is when human characteristics are ascribed to animals: Nietzsche’s use seems also to include the ascription of specifically human traits to an impersonal non-human world.