Response to Nietzsche

“The genesis of language does not proceed logically in any case, and all the material within which and with which the man of truth, the scientist, and the philosopher later work and build, if not derived from never-never land, is at least not derived from the essence of things” Truth and language are fundamentally social conventions which have their origins in metaphor and are arbitrary and subjective and that language is not about adequately mirroring the world. I support this idea; the reason is that if we consider that we have different languages, we can see that each one works about equally well even though each is so different. But maybe the purpose of language is not one-to-one meticulousness or correspondence to reality. Pure truth would echo the Kantian thing-in-itself independent of our experiences; therefore it verifies the concept that there is no pure truth in language. Language is there to deal with relations of things to man. To do this, bold metaphors are needed. A metaphor says that “A is B” where B really belongs to a different category of being. We forget the origin of truth in metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms, they congeal and harden, are taken for granted, and we come to assume that they necessarily describe the way the world really is. Which is why I believe Nietzsche’s essay is a meta-rhetorical expedition into how meaning comes to mean, and there is no true in our words because it is a man made creation, and a creation (truth) that differs relative to our personal perspectives then the concept of it would have been completely insignificant and we would not be discussing this piece 200 years later…