I listened to a series of tapes by the Teaching Company, on Nietzsche, featuring Bob Solomon and, boy, did the lecture on truth stuck with me! I remember Bob remarked what was inscribed on a stone in front of his university "The truth shall set you free". I don't remember the rest of professor Solomon's argument but, after watching this presentation, it is clear to me that, truth, in this context, is offered as a means to an end, as though, implicitely, to be free is a high moral value, highly desirable by anyone. What a lie. I understand, sometimes, what Nietzsche comes to mean when he cites Luther, using a hammer to sound of idols.
For Nietzsche, his assessment of truth might be more lament than manic assertion. More of a premonition of the world that was developing at his time. I say this with his fabled last moments of lucidity in mind. How he spent last precious moments of consciousness defending a work horse being flogged in the street of Turin, Italy. A city he praised for incorporating electric street cars without abandoning its past.
Little late, 4y later kinda late. I'm 16, and deeply interested in philosophy. I'm going to be watching a few of these videos and I might ask questions. I hope you see these comments and answer them, thank you 😊
I am just curious. What would Nietzsche think about scientific truths? For instance the law of gravity can describe successfully every time the fall of an object. We accept as rational beings the truth of this law. I remember that Nietzsche follows his perspectivism. He thinks that we as humans cannot attain knowledge of the absolute truth (if there exist such a thing as absolute truth), because we look at the world from the perspective of a human being. So our "truth" is just the best possible and the most useful description we currently have of our own world . This perspective helps us to progress, but we must tell ourselves a fundamental lie, namely that our perspective, our point of view, this human all too human perspective is the Truth. Now I have two questions. First of all, is my understanding correct? If my understanding is correct, then does this mean that another intelligent form of life could come up with a different set of laws to describe nature, which would be very different from our laws? A perspective so different from our perspective, that we would not be able to comprehend it. Thus our science and our longing to know how our universe was born is in a sense pointless. Are all our scientific findings according to Nietzsche just a set of stories that we tell to ourselves for our survival and progress? ( So for my English. Greetings from Athens)
We'll be getting to that in the rest of the videos on this text. But, you can very easily read the piece and see the answer to the question you started with
I was thinking about that very question. is "Scientific truth" any more worthy than "Other kinds of truths"? No. I think it does not possess or deserve a (superior?) status of its own. Truth strikes me as a moral concept. To prefix it with the word "Science" does not make the combination any more special (to me) than whatever other truths that exists or "practiced" in the world. Truth should not be taken as a guide or a moral reference to anything, in my view, it is a CONVENTION. If my memory serves me well, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that, according to Nietzsche, "There is no truths, only interpretations". Thank you, Dr Sandler, for this most informative lecture. And, in all fairness, it helps to have had prior exposure to Nietzsche's ideas while listening to your presentation to fully appreciate it.
So does Nietzsche believe then that there is no such thing as objective truth? It is just a moral, man-made construct which is not inherent or self-defining?
@@Luka-pv2dt No need for me to do that here in a comment thread. Read around in Nietzsche and it'll be readily apparent to you. Or watch some of the many other videos I've produced on his works. Or you can book my time for a 1-on-1 session
It might be correct, but truth also has a practical function, to allow us to live in a sustainable manner under the infinitely complex net of social interactions and natural restrictions in a way that you don't die. But I see Nietzsche's point, I also think the most profound truth we can ever reach will be much too human. It can be a terrifying conclution at first, I like to think I came to terms with it... even though the life I live is not as fulfilling as the lifestyle of an ignorant person. Love your work btw.
I love how much profundity Nietzsche is able to observe in etymologies. Although I don't really identify with much of what Nietzsche argues, he always makes me realize how much I've taken for granted.
Why do anthropomorphisms have such a strong effect on humans? That example from the Aeneid almost had me in a trance by the end of the book. It became familiar through repetition. Would it have had the same effect if it wasn't anthropomorphic? Why? Are we able to view something alien as familiar by using figurative language? Does it give us a sense of comfort? We give up the truth for the comfort of a lie. Maybe? Nietzsche = mega genius
"Why do anthropomorphisms have such a strong effect on humans?" Quite literally, anthropomorphisms are putting matters in the shape or form of the human. Why wouldn't human beings like that?
Thank you for this video! I'd just like to mention that how you're expressing yourself, from 13:47 - 14:40, catched my ADHD paved concience very well. Great bodylangueage that corresponds well with what you're saying, almost as if my untamed attention was caught in your net of charisma ;)
Hi Greg, at 3 min, you talk about 'taking ourselves out of the equation', as is often an exercise we need to do in order to imagine a cosmos devoid of humanity (helpful in the discussion of objective reality). About 10 years ago, I came up with a word for that exercise. Though it never caught on, several of my peers thought it was clever and useful. The term is exhominate or exhomination. Would love to know your thoughts on it. Love the lectures by the way. I've been subscribed for about 2 years.
Gregory B. Sadler ah my bad, I made a mistake. I recently got a book entitled "truth and lie" and I thought this was the same book, but after some further research I found that the book I have is actually a bundle of different texts (which includes on truth and lying in an extra-moral sense, but also 5 other texts).
Truth is when Humanity can no longer question the given answer if the answer is questionable then you do not have the truth you only have a an opinion.
Does Nietzsche comment on whether he believes that 'truth' is akin to 'that which is factually correct, real and accurate' or rather that 'truth' is closer to being some form of 'accepted wisdom'? The impression I get is that for Nietzsche it's the latter rather than the former, therefore possibly giving 'truth' a very different meaning to 'fact'.
Interesting. Does he then comment on situations where what can be described as accepted wisdom is not factually accurate? Or does he profess that different flavours of truth need not be internally consistent?
Thank you. Worthy of viewing a number of times and reflecting upon it. I have a philosophical faith. I believe that there is truth, beyond individual error and societies' conventions. . Now do I possess it somehow, and must identify it, or am I completely empty of the truth, and seek and understand it.
Gregory B. Sadler According to Frege, truth cannot be defined since the definition of truth requires a notion of truth. If you agree about the definition of truth, you think the definition of truth is true, but if you think that, then you already have an idea of what truth is. According to Frege, claiming P to be true is the same thing as claiming P. Written in symbolic logic: (P = 1) P
So... if you were blamed for a murder you know you didn't commit, and sentenced to the death penalty... the truth of the act that didn't take place... that's not true? Even though you know you didn't commit the murder? Or at least... honestly don't recall having committed it... certainly.
The video is very well done, but Nietzsche's position sounds pedantic. Metaphors can be rewritten using descriptive statements, words change in definition, but the concepts stay the same. As an engineer, I can't imagine my knowledge being arbitrary and imposed by society as it applies outside of its domain of influence, before it was created and will still after its disappearance. Not only it is self consistent, but its assumptions seem to be invariably respected by phisical reality.
You must mean something different by "pedantic" than we usually use the word to mean. Because it's definitely out of place here I'd try reading the text and giving it some thought
@@GregoryBSadler I might have used the wrong word, I meant it in the sense "to focus on irrelevant details/attributes of the issue". Also, I want to emphasize that I mean no disrespect and that I might be missing a key factor of Nietzsche's defense of his ideas, I'm concious I was probably too zealous in my opposition.
I think this describes the vast majority of what people call "truth" well - socially constructed conventions like "this is a dollar bill", which are only true by virtue of consciousness. But for me there's also logical truths (e.g. mathematical truths like 2+2=4) and empirical truths that are more like correspondence to (an admittedly assumed) objective reality, e.g. "if you step off a cliff you'll fall". Is he referring to these here too? Large amounts of what are taken as empirical truths, especially by people into science, are actually socially constructed ones. So in my example "if you step off a cliff you'll fall" the empirical truth is in the data that is the examples of falling that lead us to that truth, whereas many people would wrongly believe that the law of gravity is the truth. The law of gravity is just a model we've socially constructed to account for the empirical data. But no model is truth until it accounts for the data to maximal accuracy, which is currently not possible. Perhaps that's what part of what Nietzsche's getting at here. Or does he really think all truth is convention? Guess we'll find out...
I listened to a series of tapes by the Teaching Company, on Nietzsche, featuring Bob Solomon and, boy, did the lecture on truth stuck with me! I remember Bob remarked what was inscribed on a stone in front of his university "The truth shall set you free". I don't remember the rest of professor Solomon's argument but, after watching this presentation, it is clear to me that, truth, in this context, is offered as a means to an end, as though, implicitely, to be free is a high moral value, highly desirable by anyone. What a lie. I understand, sometimes, what Nietzsche comes to mean when he cites Luther, using a hammer to sound of idols.
For Nietzsche, his assessment of truth might be more lament than manic assertion. More of a premonition of the world that was developing at his time. I say this with his fabled last moments of lucidity in mind. How he spent last precious moments of consciousness defending a work horse being flogged in the street of Turin, Italy. A city he praised for incorporating electric street cars without abandoning its past.
Please keep in mind that Nietzsche was a philologist, words just do not have arbitrary meanings in his mouth (under his pen).
Little late, 4y later kinda late. I'm 16, and deeply interested in philosophy. I'm going to be watching a few of these videos and I might ask questions. I hope you see these comments and answer them, thank you 😊
I do - though usually just if the questions are relatively concise
I am just curious. What would Nietzsche think about scientific truths? For instance the law of gravity can describe successfully every time the fall of an object. We accept as rational beings the truth of this law. I remember that Nietzsche follows his perspectivism. He thinks that we as humans cannot attain knowledge of the absolute truth (if there exist such a thing as absolute truth), because we look at the world from the perspective of a human being. So our "truth" is just the best possible and the most useful description we currently have of our own world . This perspective helps us to progress, but we must tell ourselves a fundamental lie, namely that our perspective, our point of view, this human all too human perspective is the Truth. Now I have two questions. First of all, is my understanding correct? If my understanding is correct, then does this mean that another intelligent form of life could come up with a different set of laws to describe nature, which would be very different from our laws? A perspective so different from our perspective, that we would not be able to comprehend it. Thus our science and our longing to know how our universe was born is in a sense pointless. Are all our scientific findings according to Nietzsche just a set of stories that we tell to ourselves for our survival and progress? ( So for my English. Greetings from Athens)
We'll be getting to that in the rest of the videos on this text. But, you can very easily read the piece and see the answer to the question you started with
I was thinking about that very question. is "Scientific truth" any more worthy than "Other kinds of truths"? No. I think it does not possess or deserve a (superior?) status of its own. Truth strikes me as a moral concept. To prefix it with the word "Science" does not make the combination any more special (to me) than whatever other truths that exists or "practiced" in the world. Truth should not be taken as a guide or a moral reference to anything, in my view, it is a CONVENTION. If my memory serves me well, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that, according to Nietzsche, "There is no truths, only interpretations". Thank you, Dr Sandler, for this most informative lecture. And, in all fairness, it helps to have had prior exposure to Nietzsche's ideas while listening to your presentation to fully appreciate it.
All philosophy is flawed. Man's tiny view is impressive only to mankind. Eternal truth infinitely supersedes.
@@mo1240 That's very convenient thing to believe.
Math is considered to be the universal language it is same anywhere in the universe.
So does Nietzsche believe then that there is no such thing as objective truth? It is just a moral, man-made construct which is not inherent or self-defining?
he believes everything is perspectual and there is no objective truth, including his own claims
It’s more complex than that
@@GregoryBSadler can you elaborate?
@@Luka-pv2dt No need for me to do that here in a comment thread. Read around in Nietzsche and it'll be readily apparent to you. Or watch some of the many other videos I've produced on his works. Or you can book my time for a 1-on-1 session
It might be correct, but truth also has a practical function, to allow us to live in a sustainable manner under the infinitely complex net of social interactions and natural restrictions in a way that you don't die.
But I see Nietzsche's point, I also think the most profound truth we can ever reach will be much too human.
It can be a terrifying conclution at first, I like to think I came to terms with it... even though the life I live is not as fulfilling as the lifestyle of an ignorant person.
Love your work btw.
Glad you enjoy the work.
I tend to think we actually need a more complex view on truth than the classical views were, or Nietzsche articulates
yes. I'm 21 and haven't read much yet. It's too simplistic but it deepens the concept.
I love how much profundity Nietzsche is able to observe in etymologies. Although I don't really identify with much of what Nietzsche argues, he always makes me realize how much I've taken for granted.
Yes, he draws a lot from those, doesn't he?
Why do anthropomorphisms have such a strong effect on humans? That example from the Aeneid almost had me in a trance by the end of the book. It became familiar through repetition. Would it have had the same effect if it wasn't anthropomorphic? Why? Are we able to view something alien as familiar by using figurative language? Does it give us a sense of comfort? We give up the truth for the comfort of a lie. Maybe? Nietzsche = mega genius
"Why do anthropomorphisms have such a strong effect on humans?"
Quite literally, anthropomorphisms are putting matters in the shape or form of the human. Why wouldn't human beings like that?
Reading Nietzsche in my philosophy classes made me realize how naive I've been my whole life.
Nietzsche can do that
Worth its weight in gold.
Glad you enjoyed it
well put
Thank you for this video! I'd just like to mention that how you're expressing yourself, from 13:47 - 14:40, catched my ADHD paved concience very well. Great bodylangueage that corresponds well with what you're saying, almost as if my untamed attention was caught in your net of charisma ;)
Hahaha! Thanks!
Nice writing skills wow
Love this video, thanks for sharing knowledge
You're very welcome!
If you'd like to support the work I do, here's my Patreon page - www.patreon.com/sadler
How about the facts about the physical world that has been discovered by experimentations ? For instance Newtonian physics formulas.
And what are those, given what you've read in the text?
Hi Greg, at 3 min, you talk about 'taking ourselves out of the equation', as is often an exercise we need to do in order to imagine a cosmos devoid of humanity (helpful in the discussion of objective reality). About 10 years ago, I came up with a word for that exercise. Though it never caught on, several of my peers thought it was clever and useful. The term is exhominate or exhomination. Would love to know your thoughts on it. Love the lectures by the way. I've been subscribed for about 2 years.
Is there such thing as "Objective reality"? Or is this an oxymoron? Really.
@@claudioabado6246 If reality is dictated by experience then it can be objective or subjective.
Do you have any good resources which touch on the chapter "theleology since Kant"? Struggle with that one.
Chapter? This is a very short essay
Gregory B. Sadler ah my bad, I made a mistake. I recently got a book entitled "truth and lie" and I thought this was the same book, but after some further research I found that the book I have is actually a bundle of different texts (which includes on truth and lying in an extra-moral sense, but also 5 other texts).
Hahaha! Well, that entirely explains it. Probably a pretty good book, I imagine
Truth is when Humanity can no longer question the given answer if the answer is questionable then you do not have the truth you only have a an opinion.
So that would just be an opinion on your part, I guess
Does Nietzsche comment on whether he believes that 'truth' is akin to 'that which is factually correct, real and accurate' or rather that 'truth' is closer to being some form of 'accepted wisdom'? The impression I get is that for Nietzsche it's the latter rather than the former, therefore possibly giving 'truth' a very different meaning to 'fact'.
Both.
Interesting. Does he then comment on situations where what can be described as accepted wisdom is not factually accurate? Or does he profess that different flavours of truth need not be internally consistent?
Sure. You really want to start reading around in his works, I think
Yes definitely. I tried a couple of times to get in to his works but found them quite dense. Time to persevere I think. Great video series as usual.
Thanks. Yes - just keep plugging away at it, and over time, you'll start seeing how the ideas come together
Thank you. Worthy of viewing a number of times and reflecting upon it. I have a philosophical faith. I believe that there is truth, beyond individual error and societies' conventions. . Now do I possess it somehow, and must identify it, or am I completely empty of the truth, and seek and understand it.
The majority of Analytical philosophers would agree with correspondence as the "truth".
I think the majority probably don't think about it often enough to really have staked out much of a position on it
Gregory B. Sadler
According to Frege, truth cannot be defined since the definition of truth requires a notion of truth. If you agree about the definition of truth, you think the definition of truth is true, but if you think that, then you already have an idea of what truth is. According to Frege, claiming P to be true is the same thing as claiming P. Written in symbolic logic:
(P = 1) P
Circular reference. An attempt at a tautology, a thing *is* because it *is"? Superficially profound.
Touche😀
Trouble with all Humanity they think that truth is somebody's opinion.
Yup! Humanity is in more trouble than it knows...
The distraction of background interference is unreasonable philosophy.
No idea what you're on about
I thought truth was what remains after we figure out who's lying and is logical. This sounds like perception or something.
You thought wrong
So... if you were blamed for a murder you know you didn't commit, and sentenced to the death penalty... the truth of the act that didn't take place... that's not true? Even though you know you didn't commit the murder? Or at least... honestly don't recall having committed it... certainly.
What are you asking?
Any subject at all if it's questionable I would not put all my faith in it.
"Faith'"? Isn't that another dubious concept?
The video is very well done, but Nietzsche's position sounds pedantic. Metaphors can be rewritten using descriptive statements, words change in definition, but the concepts stay the same. As an engineer, I can't imagine my knowledge being arbitrary and imposed by society as it applies outside of its domain of influence, before it was created and will still after its disappearance. Not only it is self consistent, but its assumptions seem to be invariably respected by phisical reality.
You must mean something different by "pedantic" than we usually use the word to mean. Because it's definitely out of place here
I'd try reading the text and giving it some thought
@@GregoryBSadler I might have used the wrong word, I meant it in the sense "to focus on irrelevant details/attributes of the issue". Also, I want to emphasize that I mean no disrespect and that I might be missing a key factor of Nietzsche's defense of his ideas, I'm concious I was probably too zealous in my opposition.
Unless you’re reading the text, I wouldn’t pass any judgements at all
I think this describes the vast majority of what people call "truth" well - socially constructed conventions like "this is a dollar bill", which are only true by virtue of consciousness.
But for me there's also logical truths (e.g. mathematical truths like 2+2=4) and empirical truths that are more like correspondence to (an admittedly assumed) objective reality, e.g. "if you step off a cliff you'll fall". Is he referring to these here too?
Large amounts of what are taken as empirical truths, especially by people into science, are actually socially constructed ones. So in my example "if you step off a cliff you'll fall" the empirical truth is in the data that is the examples of falling that lead us to that truth, whereas many people would wrongly believe that the law of gravity is the truth. The law of gravity is just a model we've socially constructed to account for the empirical data. But no model is truth until it accounts for the data to maximal accuracy, which is currently not possible.
Perhaps that's what part of what Nietzsche's getting at here. Or does he really think all truth is convention? Guess we'll find out...
Indeed. . .
At least my answer is simple and to the point.