Nietzsches Rhetoric and Mans Worn Out Coins

On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense was written in 1873 by German philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche. In my reading of this text, Nietzsche attempts to persuade his audience to see that
intellect is merely human, and that it fabricates the illusion of trutha reflection. Instead of
relying on empirical evidence, he illustrates his points through analogical reasoning, thereby
demonstrating the very ideas the text proffers: truth is something creative, not factual, logical, or
otherworldly. It is nothing more than little moments of discovery. By using dialogic inquiry,
figurative language, and illustration, Nietzsche demonstratively persuades his readers to accept
that truth is an act of human creation, not a fact, and that metaphors are as close to the truth as
man can ever get.
He organizes the essay as a kind of question-and-answer self-dialogue. This approach can
be read as a small nod to Plato, whose stance on truth Nietzsches own claim counters, in the
way the text embodies the idea that thinking is talking to oneself (Plato, Theaetatus 189e190a). What else is essayistic composition but a working through of ones own ideas with
oneself? The reader is only a shadow thought of a future yet to come, at least in the act of
writing, even more so in this case, as the essay was never published by the author. Here, the
audience is literally the writer. It is the examination of Nietzsches own ideas, a way of testing
various premises, concepts, presuppositions, from the Latin exigere to test or weigh out. This
approach is thus a means of exposing, a rhetorical strategy that prepares the way to other kinds of
discoveries. It illuminates the authors own mental topography. By essentially talking through his
own ideas, Nietzsche maps out the limits of his own mental constructs, conceptsthe dialogos
(through word/language/reason) translated into text. Once the construction is brought forth, then

thoughtful engagement with those structures give grounds for movement from room to room
topos to topos, where the grounds of dwelling bear the tread of thoughtmetaphors all.
The essay begins with a micro-parody of Genesisan anecdotal illustration that the
power of knowing is neither divine nor immortal. This rendering of a creation myth as something
brought about by the intellect, a dissimulation, sets the tone of the essay (Nietzsche 114-15). It
is at once serious and satirical. Never once does Nietzsche state that he is refuting Christian
doctrine, but he alludes to the biblical account of both mankind and the worlds beginning
indirectly, countering them by describing metaphysical creation as nothing more than an
invented fable like the one he gives the reader. However, Nietzsche avoids explicit refutation and
openly insulting his audience, German intellectuals in the 19th centurydevout Christiansin
favor of charging them with curious skepticism. Had he come out and said that the Bibles
account of universal creation was a fictional story, it would have antagonized a hostile
(oppositional) audience. Instead, he approaches his topic through a hypothetical anecdote,
starting the five-line mini-genesis with Once upon a time (114). Nietzsche creates an
analogical strawman to knock downa challenge to the reader. The point of which is
performative, to show that idea-laden narratives can be easily fabricated with words, but that the
written word provides no hard evidence of absolute truth, just the thoughts of the author. Here he
establishes that the essay does not build on literal meanings or definitional fact, but on something
more metaphorical, figurativea thought experiment.
Nietzsches rhetorical strategy here is clever. He invokes biblical doctrine without having
to say it, and shortly thereafter, does the same to Plato. When Nietzsche refers to the proudest of
men, the philosopher (114), he alludes to Socrates from Platos Allegory of the Cave, a story
that separates the godly realm of divine and universal truth from the corrupt, phenomenal world

of man. Thus, the two of the most influential texts regarding the source of absolute truth in
Western culturePlatonic dualism and Christianitycome under attack through a kind of
inversion and slight-of-hand. Nietzsche skillfully circumnavigates his opposition through
anecdotal implication, and thereby avoids direct conflict, never calling on them by name.
Instead, he draws the reader in by refuting nothing more than his own tale. Nietzsche negates his
opponents by proxy, and in the process offers a demonstrative analogy to show that any man can
make up a good story and claims about the truth of truth. He accomplishes this skillful attack
rhetorically, using analogy and anecdote instead of logical reasoning or scientific analysis.
Nietzsche builds upon this first propositiontruth is something made-up by mortal
minds, not something transcendent or divineby stating that The intellect unfolds its principle
power in dissimulation (115). In other words, man primarily uses intellect for amoral deception.
This is where the role of language comes into play. Nietzsche employs rhetorical questions after
establishing his subject and context in the introductory paragraphs, asking Is language the
adequate expression of all realities? (115). In a kind of dialogue with himself, he responds that
language only designates the relations of things to men and that the only way for an author to
accomplish this end is to lay hold of the boldest metaphors (116). Based on Nietzsches
assertion that words are symbols for things, which become concepts, and that the concepts arise
from the equation of unequal things, he implies that like a metaphor, all language-based
concepts are nothing more than mere associations between objects and symbolic or metaphorical
representations for the human experience of physical thingsfictional confections. All of these
elements: words, concepts, phrases, stories, are thus nothing more than A moveable host of
metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have
been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished (117), the thesis

statement of the essay. Nietzsche sets up questions like What is a word? and What then is
truth? to work through answers, illustrations, and examples until he is able to formulate a
propositional conclusion (117). In response to his own inquiries, he is proposes that Truths are
illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out
and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now
considered as metal and no longer coins (117). This self-dialogue allows Nietzsche to discover
his own theory of truth as a human act of associative metaphorizing, mortal creation instead of
something divinely giventhe action of mind recreating its experience of a physical world in
fictions.
What Nietzsche is doing is, again, largely demonstrative. He cannot successfully
persuade his audience by telling them that everything they know is a lie, made-up. People tend to
recoil when called a liar. Thus, rather than trying to tell them what he has uncovered in his own
philosophical introspections, Nietzsche works through his own thoughts on paper to show the
reader how he came to his conclusion. He does not simply state what he believes, he shows how
he got there and takes the reader through the process. By doing this, Nietzsche is able to both
appeal to the readers impulse to know and establishes his own credibility. He connects to the
reader by being his own skeptic, asking himself hard questions, and then working through the
complex knots of concepts until they seem to reveal, not prove, their underlying meaning. Then,
he challenges the reader to see himself as the subject of the work, stating that every man is a
Genius of construction (118). Thus, he shows his relation to the reader as part and parcel of the
same faculty of intellect.
In addition to his use of analogy, anecdote, rhetorical questions, and demonstration,
Nietzsche largely frames his ideas in the subject of his philosophical reflectionmetaphor.

Having suggested that what man believes to be truth is nothing more than metaphor, it would be
ironic and hypocritical for him to try and support his claim with anything else. Thus, rather than
trying to analytically define his own ideas or experiences, Nietzsche composes poetic images to
juxtapose theory with comparative illustration. When he suggests that man clings to the art of
dissimulation to hold up constructs and conventions as facts, he says the act is man hanging in
dreams on the back of a tiger (115). When he examines the human compulsion to fabricate
expressions that represent experience, he says it is with the same necessity with which a spider
spins (120). His metaphors bring concepts alive through imageable comparisons to real life
phenomena, thereby showing the minds eye something more concrete and experiential than
defining words with words, abstractions with abstractions. This technique only further reinforces
his message by using the tool he espouses is the fundamental human drive as his primary form
of communication (121). Thus, Nietzsche not only argues his position, but he matches form with
function, guiding the reader to his own revelations, rather than telling him what to imagine,
think, or believe.
In this thought-experiment essay, Nietzsche essentially starts an ideological revolution
that breaks with the philosophical traditions of the past. He indirectly renounces systems of
thought that degrade or reject human creative impulses as the primary force of all meaning,
value, and truth. In opposition to Christian and Platonic doctrine, Nietzsche reclaims reason and
creativity as something mortal, and returns the scepter of judgment and valuation back into
human hands. While the text is dense and can seem intentionally obtuse at times, Nietzsche
offers a kind of olive branch to his readers and opponents alike. He seeks out what it means to be
human and elevates the mind as the great aesthetic creator of its own world. This essay does not
openly condemn the beliefs of others, as many have argued that Nietzsches work does, but

instead bestows upon the reader the great responsibility for determining what has meaning in his
own lifewhat he believes and what matters. It is a rhetorical exercise in exploration and
discovery through an examination of language and thought as the makers of truth.
By providing comparisons instead of facts, Nietzsche compels his readers to react to his
seemingly confrontational claims, imploring them to think for themselves. The reader then has to
work out what merit he will give Nietzsches claims, and because the author does not simply tell
the reader what think, he has to come to his own conclusions. Nietzsche reveals truth by
concealing it in metaphorsshowing one thing by masking another. Thus, he avoids making
logos driven arguments, preferring to use pathos and analogical reasoning to stimulate his
audiences curiosity. This act of discovery, however, requires an educated and interested
audience, limiting the range of effectiveness for his argument to a small, esoteric community of
academics, clergy, and the philosophically minded. At the same time, his lack of deductive
reasoning and clear, coherent explication makes him more appealing in that he does not try to
force his own ideology on anyone, instead leaving everything up to the readers interpretation.
Nietzsches combination of analogical comparisons and metaphorical images make his
argument more artistically evocative than axiomatic. The fact that the essay continues to be
controversial nearly 200 years later indicates just how powerful this piece of rhetoric is, albeit
dense, often times confusing and circular, and at others too ambiguous for the average reader to
understand on his own. What the essay does succeed at, however, is illustrating what is arguably
one of the most important pieces of compositional style and philosophical investigation of the
last three centuries. Nietzsches essay is an ontology spun out of his own imaginative
metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms (117); it is a meta-rhetorical expedition into

how meaning comes to mean. This essay is perhaps more poetry than persuasion, but that may
also be its most enduring strength.

Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense. The Nietzsche Reader. Ed.
Keith Ansell Pearson and Duncan Large. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006. 115-23. Print.
Plato. Allegory of the Cave. The Republic. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. University of California:
Richard Cohen, n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2012.
---. Theaetetus. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Project Gutenberg. Project Gutenberg, 13 Sept. 2008.
Web. 10 Sept. 2012.