“Intellect mainly for dissimulation”: Deconstructing Ourselves to Freedom
We are not free. Laws inhibit our actions. Psychology provides us with the proof that our decisions are not our own, as do several branches of physics. Even the Almighty tells us we are not free - we are all predestined to be sinners or saints. We are merely caged animals who are not aware of the restraints placed on us. Every action and decision before us has had an influence in how we function, as will our actions and decisions influence the lives of countless generations after us. All around us is some form of imprisonment - some instances more obvious than others - and all around us are institutions designed to keep us “in check” with the norms and orders of society. Choice is not an option, it is merely an illusion cast by those in power upon those who lack any semblance of power; choice is a metaphor for something rather sinister - absolute control. Yet, we are free and all one must do is deconstruct their environment and they will learn the truth - there is no truth: there is no God, there is no predestination or determinism, there are no laws, there is no morality - there is no limit upon the possibilities of humanity. Freedom does actually exist. Like the Buddhist burning the ego and the material world, one must burn what they know to be true - forget the laws pressed upon you by society; negate what behaviorists, quantum physicists, and philosophers have told you about choice; you can do anything you want simply because you can. “Free at last, free at last. Thank you Nietzsche, for we are free at last!”
Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense acts like a manifesto of how humanity is a prisoner to logic and knowledge, but also serves as an escape plan. Nietzsche communicates to the reader - through his fervent writing style - that logic and knowledge are what keep us alive, yet at the same time imprison us; “[...] intellect, which was [...] a device for detaining them [humanity] a minute within existence. For without this addition [intellect] they would have every reason to flee this existence as quickly as Lessing’s son,” (451). This work reveals to us that we are free, not only because we have the keys to unlock the chains that restrain us but also because the chains that restrain us do not actually exist. As mentioned in Michel Foucault’s Panopticism, all institutions exist to control, especially the institution of intellect that Nietzsche speaks of. But the interesting point about intellect is that it does not exist outside the human mind; it was an invention - “[...] clever beasts invented knowing,” (451). It becomes rather clear that intellect is pointless if it becomes extinct with the dying breath of the last human being. Some may argue that Nietzsche’s attack on intellect and metaphors is self-defeating for the very fact that he uses intellect and metaphors to explain his position, but there are several cases that can be made in his defense. One can say that Nietzsche is - to borrow a metaphor - “fighting fire with fire” with his use of intellect and metaphor to defeat their purpose. Another defense is one of the institutionalization of the need for knowing: taking a page of Foucault, we have been taught that we cannot exist with language or intellect - yet for all we know that could be a lie designed by an institution in order to maintain its existence. It becomes a dilemma after a while though, for once we free ourselves from one institution we find ourselves in another - and this may continue ad infinitum like a babushka doll, much like Number Six believing he has escaped the Village only to find himself still under the watchful eye and complete control of Number Two. In order to understand our potential we must be like Neo - question every authority, and defy every law (universal or otherwise) - and eventually find our way out of the cave and into “the desert of the real”.
Nietzsche’s criticism of our use of metaphor echoes back to the days of Plato and flashes forward to the writings of Jean Baudrillard; not only are we chained in the cave and believe the shadows to be real, but we have even ignored the original concept and only believe the phantom. We have consented to our day-to-day metaphors and no longer are concerned with where they came from - we ignore their origins. A comedic example of the overuse - or abuse - of metaphor goes like this: A journalist visits one of the world’s oldest abbeys and meets one of the head monks. While touring the grounds of the sacred establishment the two come across a room filled with about a dozen monks all vigorously copying the work out of ancient texts. The journalist looks at the holy men’s actions with wide curiosity and asks his guide, “What are they doing?” The superior monk turns to the journalist and explains, “They are copying the works of the monks before them in order to preserve our heritage and what we stand for.” The journalist thinks about it for a moment and then asks, “What if someone were to write down the wrong word or leave out a section entirely, then wouldn’t the monks who copied the text after them be carrying on the mistake?” The monk had never thought of this and quickly excused himself to the catacombs of the abbey were the original copies of all their holy texts were kept. After several days the journalist and other monks became worried about the head monk, so they all went separately to find the missing monk. After several hours of searching the journalist comes across the monk sitting in a darkened room weeping loudly as he clutches a book in his hands. The journalist makes his way to the monk and asks, “What’s wrong?” The sadden monk turns and replies, “It says celebrate.” Granted, the monk searching for the original version of his text was rather easy, but for humanity to find out the original forms of their words will prove impossible. Jane Tompkins’s “Indians”: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History deals with the very issue of trying to know history - when all the facts are piled together all one can do is make a guess, or as Nietzsche would put it, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” (451).
We have looked through the lies that have been imposed upon us since even before we were born and now can make the choice to change up the system and truly become free, or live the lies we are accustomed to - simply realizing “ignorance is bliss”. But for those of us who choose to be different and choose to stray away from the institutions of society walk a fine line - we are still tainted with the concepts of the “old world” and may let these ideals influence our course of action, regardless if we are aware of it; there is even the issue that these concepts we are fighting against helped sway us into being the very people we are today. When it comes down to it we are free, but we have to be aware of our actions in order to fall into the pitfalls of knowing and become imprisoned again. Perhaps the life after deconstructing our surroundings will be unlike anything one as ever experienced and therefore getting ensnared by intellect is not possible, but until that day comes all we can do is wonder and hope that we will be the lucky one who will break away from it all and will know freedom.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense acts like a manifesto of how humanity is a prisoner to logic and knowledge, but also serves as an escape plan. Nietzsche communicates to the reader - through his fervent writing style - that logic and knowledge are what keep us alive, yet at the same time imprison us; “[...] intellect, which was [...] a device for detaining them [humanity] a minute within existence. For without this addition [intellect] they would have every reason to flee this existence as quickly as Lessing’s son,” (451). This work reveals to us that we are free, not only because we have the keys to unlock the chains that restrain us but also because the chains that restrain us do not actually exist. As mentioned in Michel Foucault’s Panopticism, all institutions exist to control, especially the institution of intellect that Nietzsche speaks of. But the interesting point about intellect is that it does not exist outside the human mind; it was an invention - “[...] clever beasts invented knowing,” (451). It becomes rather clear that intellect is pointless if it becomes extinct with the dying breath of the last human being. Some may argue that Nietzsche’s attack on intellect and metaphors is self-defeating for the very fact that he uses intellect and metaphors to explain his position, but there are several cases that can be made in his defense. One can say that Nietzsche is - to borrow a metaphor - “fighting fire with fire” with his use of intellect and metaphor to defeat their purpose. Another defense is one of the institutionalization of the need for knowing: taking a page of Foucault, we have been taught that we cannot exist with language or intellect - yet for all we know that could be a lie designed by an institution in order to maintain its existence. It becomes a dilemma after a while though, for once we free ourselves from one institution we find ourselves in another - and this may continue ad infinitum like a babushka doll, much like Number Six believing he has escaped the Village only to find himself still under the watchful eye and complete control of Number Two. In order to understand our potential we must be like Neo - question every authority, and defy every law (universal or otherwise) - and eventually find our way out of the cave and into “the desert of the real”.
Nietzsche’s criticism of our use of metaphor echoes back to the days of Plato and flashes forward to the writings of Jean Baudrillard; not only are we chained in the cave and believe the shadows to be real, but we have even ignored the original concept and only believe the phantom. We have consented to our day-to-day metaphors and no longer are concerned with where they came from - we ignore their origins. A comedic example of the overuse - or abuse - of metaphor goes like this: A journalist visits one of the world’s oldest abbeys and meets one of the head monks. While touring the grounds of the sacred establishment the two come across a room filled with about a dozen monks all vigorously copying the work out of ancient texts. The journalist looks at the holy men’s actions with wide curiosity and asks his guide, “What are they doing?” The superior monk turns to the journalist and explains, “They are copying the works of the monks before them in order to preserve our heritage and what we stand for.” The journalist thinks about it for a moment and then asks, “What if someone were to write down the wrong word or leave out a section entirely, then wouldn’t the monks who copied the text after them be carrying on the mistake?” The monk had never thought of this and quickly excused himself to the catacombs of the abbey were the original copies of all their holy texts were kept. After several days the journalist and other monks became worried about the head monk, so they all went separately to find the missing monk. After several hours of searching the journalist comes across the monk sitting in a darkened room weeping loudly as he clutches a book in his hands. The journalist makes his way to the monk and asks, “What’s wrong?” The sadden monk turns and replies, “It says celebrate.” Granted, the monk searching for the original version of his text was rather easy, but for humanity to find out the original forms of their words will prove impossible. Jane Tompkins’s “Indians”: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History deals with the very issue of trying to know history - when all the facts are piled together all one can do is make a guess, or as Nietzsche would put it, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” (451).
We have looked through the lies that have been imposed upon us since even before we were born and now can make the choice to change up the system and truly become free, or live the lies we are accustomed to - simply realizing “ignorance is bliss”. But for those of us who choose to be different and choose to stray away from the institutions of society walk a fine line - we are still tainted with the concepts of the “old world” and may let these ideals influence our course of action, regardless if we are aware of it; there is even the issue that these concepts we are fighting against helped sway us into being the very people we are today. When it comes down to it we are free, but we have to be aware of our actions in order to fall into the pitfalls of knowing and become imprisoned again. Perhaps the life after deconstructing our surroundings will be unlike anything one as ever experienced and therefore getting ensnared by intellect is not possible, but until that day comes all we can do is wonder and hope that we will be the lucky one who will break away from it all and will know freedom.