Progressing through the German Romantics, Friedrich Nietzsche celebrates the individual to such a degree he or she no longer seems to be human. By tearing down language and truths, he seems to suggest a world of complete independence from one another, calling it “ aesthetic.” Personally, I believe there must be some sort of unity for humanity, especially in relation to communication between the each other and the natural world. He claims we understand truths through language, while defining truths as “a mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms, and in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation, and decoration” (768). Or, simply a series of subjective forms used to describe a “thing-in-itself.” To an extent, I agree with Nietzsche’s qualms with truths, language has become complacent, resting on metaphors that have since become stale and cliché. Yet, I believe that we can use the known metaphor to create something new. You know, better and stuff. (Yeah, I love modernism, shut up.)
Nietzsche agues that language cannot fully or adequately express our realties, yet, he ceases to realize the beauties of language, of rhetoric. Yes, “the stone is hard” is a subjective stimulus (766), but if it’s universally acknowledged with that feature, does it not become objective? If the hardness of a stone becomes an empirical known, perceived by everyone equally, then a freedom in the next metaphor, the next step clearly exists. By dismembering all universals, language can rot into a world of chaos, resting in the arms of “subjectivity.” However, A good poet must know his or her audience, by understanding the “hard and rigid” metaphor; a foundation is established. Language may be like a flowing river, but the riverbed dictates the river.
Lesley,
ReplyDeleteI like that you argue with Nietzsche. Bravo. :) I do have a question for you though. While Nietzsche says that language can't fully express reality, you argue that, by universal usage and acknowledgment, what the language signifies becomes universal. If that is the case, would you also argue that language is a cultural construct, that changes across culture, but can be a universal within that? Or is it larger than that? If so, what does that look like? As you say, a good poet must know his or her audience. Does that imply that, as the audience changes the universal also changes?
Brilliant, Leslie. :D
ReplyDeleteI agree with your last part especially. Some universals hold true, and allowance for that is neccessary. I know Nietzsche hates Plato, but the guy had some good points, like the innatist view of "sameness." How can you teach or articulate that concept? According to Plato, you kind of can't; you just know it. The idea of "sameness" is universally acknowledged; is it still subjective, then? In the particular, specific arena, then maybe; but in the general, broad comprehension of the concept, a universal-like understanding of it emerges.
Now, I'll be honest: I kind of like Nietzsche's idea of language as one giant metaphor (and not a very good one, at that); I like the deconstructionist turn of it. But there're still parts of him (read: most) that makes me cock my head with a suspicious "Mmmm...."
"Yes, “the stone is hard” is a subjective stimulus (766), but if it’s universally acknowledged with that feature, does it not become objective?"
ReplyDeleteI think Nietzsche would say that it's misleading to even use the word "objective" in that sense. He would say that hardness cannot be considered independently of its relation to something else; i.e. a rock would be hard or soft depending on what you were comparing it to, and that hardness is not somehow intrinsically tied to the rock. The fact that everyone perceives rocks as hard is merely an indication that the apparati through which we feel (i.e. skin, fingers, etc.) are themselves universally softer than rocks. If human hands (for example) were harder than rocks, then rocks would be considered soft. It's not clear that because everyone feels the same way, that *what* they feel is objective, as opposed to universally subjective.
But then again, Nietzsche's response wouldn't be uncontroversial, either. I think it comes down to what you mean by "objective feature" when you asked "if it’s universally acknowledged with that feature, does it not become objective?"
If, by objective feature, you mean "a feature that would exist independently of humans perceiving it" then probably not.
If, by objective feature, you mean "perceived universally" then maybe. Kant thinks so. But even Kant is going to try to reserve the more robust sense of the word "objective" for the noumenal, things-in-themselves--which, according to him, we cannot perceive--and talk about subjective universality, instead.
I think it's interesting that Nietzsche's idea of language is tied to the idea of metaphors precisely because he does hate objectivity in by his definition of the word. To me, even for metaphors to work, there must be an element of objectivity, of the type of universals you mentioned, and an acknowledgement of shared experiences. Nietzsche rages against shared experiences as being almost the unique experience of the herd, but how else are we to live among each other? Nietzsche I think would rather live alone as the ubermensch anyhow, but I agree with you criticism of his ideas.
ReplyDelete@ Natz. Well, as you know, I do find Nietzsche quite charming, it was a true strain to be objective. However, I want to argue that I believe language is a construct that goes beyond culture. Language and the need to communicate is an innate and biological. (Hence, deaf babies babbling in early stages of development.) Therefore, a need to establish a metaphor is organic to humankind. Although I think the metaphor itself is subjective and native to the culture, the actually installment is wholly objective to humans.
ReplyDeleteLesley,
ReplyDeleteI think that all of the comments are good. And, the greater issue is what to do w/ an idea of objectivity. I think Nietzsche still has a point, particularly when you want to consider universals--at which point you have to consider the problems w/ translation. What happens when you have languages w/ 25 different words that could be rendered as "stone" or as "hard"? Then, you get swallowed up in subtlety.
Nietzsche also makes quite an assumption in his critique of language. He seems to be assuming not only that there can be a universal perceived through subjective stimulus, but he assumes that the role of language is only descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Language doesn't just fail to describe reality properly, but it acts upon reality as well. Most of the time we communicate with performative language. "Excuse me," will generally get another person to move. A baby's "gimme" expresses a desire for an object. Does Nietzsche think we should avoid or confuse this type of language as well?
ReplyDeleteOne other thought. You say that the riverbed dictates the river. I think that Nietzsche would agree with you. He just wants to keep language fluid enough that it butts up against the riverbed, so we can come closer to understanding what the thing-in-itself really is. That is why he advocates for new metaphors, as in the world of a dream. If we keep modifying our metaphors, we are more likely to deepen our understanding and draw closer to the universal nature of the object that hides behind the language.
ReplyDeleteAs critic Paul DeMan says, "The poetic impulse, in all its duplicity, belongs to man alone. God appears on the scene as the power of reality itself [...] God is on the side of chaotic reality and style is powerless to conquer him. The proliferation of mirrors is all the more terrifying because each new image brings us a step closer to his face."
If we keep generating new reflections of reality, they bring us closer to the things in themselves, basically--reality being equal to God in this argument.
In response to (or building off of) Doug's comment: consider how many words we have in English for "forest". There are around 25, including: copse, woods, forest, glen, orchard, strand, jungle, rainforest, grove, woodland, cover, growth, weald...
ReplyDeleteSome of these (weald, for instance) aren't sued very much. But for most of them, you have a pretty good idea what they mean, right? A jungle is a very specific type of forest that conjures a very different image than a copse-- even a different image than a rainforest for many Western Washingtonians. The same happens in other languages. Russians have a particular word for dark blue and for blue. As a result, they tend to be better at distinguishing subtle differences between blues.
Now, this is partly a result of the arbitrariness of language. Why do we specifically name some colors on the color spectrum and not others? Because somebody decided those were the colors which needed to be distinguished. That's seemingly arbitrary.
But the reasons we have so many words for "forest" in the English language is because there are so many trees in English speaking countries, and so many kinds of forests. So while we could say that we are getting caught up in subtleties, we are really distinguishing the differences necessary for communication. Language is thus, perhaps, less arbitrary than the color example may make it seem.
However, I think Nietzsche is right that if we do not allow language to continue developing, it does become stagnant and unuseful. Nonetheless, language does continue to develop. I can remember a time in my life when "blog" would have been a nonsense word.