Note:Nietzsche is difficult to understand. These writings are an attempt for myself to become better acquainted with his concepts. It is also a space for others to learn and converse in the subject matter. I don't have a degree in philosophy; most of my knowledge is the result of self-study. If you find something incorrect or inaccurate with my interpretations, please comment and we can learn together.
The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions! It is already a long story; yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this "Will to Truth" in us?
Why are we so obsessed with Truth? Philosophers, like Kant and Hegel, have dedicated their entire lives to constructing grand metaphysical systems that claim to discover universal truths. Even Nietzsche feels this desire for truth, but his questioning leads him elsewhere. He grows impatient and suspicious of the constant questioning, and instead starts to question the questioning-thing itself. He aims to uncover the hidden causes behind this desire called the "Will to Truth"
In fact we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will—until at last we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?
If we continue to question the questions, where does it lead? For Nietzsche, it leads to a more basic question: What is the value of truth? Or in other words, why do we assume truth to be good?
To some, this might seem obvious. But this feeling of obviousness could be the reason why such a question hasn't yet been posed.
For example, let's take a look at truth practically. Understanding the nature of the universe gives us power and control over it. Rational explanations provide context for making informed, ethical decisions. Fine. But why is "controlling the world" and "making informed, ethical decisions" inherently good? What Nietzsche is hinting at is the idea that our valuation of truth is much more complex than what we originally assumed.
Nietzsche then turns the question upside-down: Why not value untruth, uncertainty, or ignorance? One could go even one step further: why value anything at all? Nietzsche here hints at nihilism and a reevaluation of values (including truth).
The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation.
The question "what is the value of truth?" has revealed itself. But isn't it more accurate to say that, we ourselves, truth seekers, have led ourselves to ask this question? Aren't we using truth to uncover Truth? What value have we presupposed in order to arrive at such a question? We have a chicken-egg problem.
In the story of Oedipus, the hero Oedipus is stopped in his journey by a Sphinx that demands Oedipus to solve her riddle or die. The riddle is: "What walks on four feet in the morning, two in the afternoon and three at night?" Oedipus answers correctly: "Man: as an infant, he crawls on all fours; as an adult, he walks on two legs and; in old age, he uses a walking stick." The Sphinx becomes so enraged by the fact she couldn't "out-truth" Oedipus that she kills herself (Monty Python and the holy grail anyone?) [1]
Why Oedipus? Oedipus is the first to solve the Sphinx's riddle. In our case, the riddle is "what is the value of truth?" Many others before Oedipus could not defeat the Sphinx because they provided the wrong answer (and died). However, the death of the sphinx might symbolize the death and reevaluation of truth itself.
And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.
This inconspicuous assumption (the value of truth) has finally revealed itself to us. But if we reevaluate the value of truth, what other values must we throw away? This is the risk. If we start tugging on the strings, what values will come undone? And which of these values do we rely on to give us our worldview? What values (if any) will be left?
Notes:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_and_the_Sphinx
To reply you need to sign in.