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 falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life.
"Our new language" refers to the way the "new philosophers" will communicate. If the new philosophers are to break off from past prejudices of metaphysicians, then a new language will be required.
Here, Nietzsche asserts that a false opinion doesn't necessitate its rejection. This is a direct stab to the metaphysicians' obsession with valuing Truth.
Some of the falsest opinions (he attacks Kant again with synthetic a priori judgments), are the most indispensable because they are life-preserving: They reinforce a way of living (and that is why it still exists today).
If we renounced these false judgments, then "man could not live." You can't simply rid a culture of its values, these judgments are deeply entrenched in identity (regardless of how true or false they are).
Note that Nietzsche is referring to True and False in the context of the metaphysicians, who constructed systems and rules that were based in Truth. Nietzsche is not stating that he personal believes some conditions of life to be "true" or "false." He is defining a new vocabulary.
For example, what if one day, the United States got rid of employment / companies / capitalism and became a large collective with basic income. In fact, let's say having a job became illegal (just roll with me here). Some people who live in the constant work/personal life ambiguity would immediately find themselves lost; their way of life would become immediately negated. But what made having a job necessary in the first place? Nothing, really. Then why do we take having a job so seriously? Because we rely on it to preserve our way of life.
TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil.
Therefore we must acknowledge untruth as a condition for the preservation of life. By doing so, the new philosophers are already redefining what it means for something to have value. It is a reevaluation of values. And it must go beyond good and evil.
To reply you need to sign in.