What does it mean to search for truth? Can anyone truly be objective when exploring life’s biggest questions?
According to Friedrich Nietzsche, truth—at least objective truth—is a futile pursuit. This is because we humans can’t escape subjectivity. Challenging the foundation of Western philosophy, he argues that our cultural beliefs and personal perspectives always influence our thinking.
Keep reading to understand why even our most basic assumptions about truth and knowledge might not be as solid as we think.
Friedrich Nietzsche on Truth
Typically, philosophers in the Western tradition are all about pursuing truth. But, for Friedrich Nietzsche, truth isn’t a straightforward proposition. He opens his book Beyond Good and Evil with a critique of existing philosophy. He argues that the entire Western philosophical canon is dogmatic—that is, it’s based on a major unprovable assumption. We’ll explain the major assumption behind philosophy as well as Nietzsche’s challenge to it.
(Shortform note: Nietzsche was not the first philosopher to accuse the Western canon of dogmatism. For example, 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that the certainty of cause-and-effect relationships was a dogmatic belief. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he argued that humans can’t definitively prove cause-and-effect relationships because they’re based on our limited subjective experience. We believe a pencil will fall when we let go of it because this is what has always happened, but we have no way of definitively proving it will fall every time forever. But, while Hume criticizes specific beliefs, Nietzsche challenges the entire Western philosophical canon.)
The Major Assumption: Truth Exists
Nietzsche explains that the major assumption underlying the Western philosophical canon is the belief in objective truth, or truth according to a universal standard that doesn’t rely on anyone’s individual perspective. For centuries, philosophers framed their work as attempts to discover this truth. They tried to avoid using their subjective perspectives and instead used standards they believed were objective, such as reason and logic.
For example, 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy attempts to prove the existence of God and the soul. To ensure he remains objective, Descartes refuses to use any of his subjective past experiences or perceptions in this philosophical project until he can objectively prove they’re reliable. Without experience or perceptions, Descartes can at first only be objectively certain of one thing: I think, therefore I am. In other words, he has to exist because he thinks, and you can’t think if you don’t exist.
(Shortform note: Nietzsche blames Plato for Western philosophy’s focus on objective truth. To better understand what the search for objective truth entails, we can examine Plato’s theory of the forms, best described in The Republic. Plato argued that beyond our sensory experience lies a realm of perfect, unchanging forms that represent the true essence of things. For instance, a physical chair is just an imperfect manifestation of the ideal form of “chairness.” He said these forms exist independently of perceivable objects and can only be discovered through reason and intellect. Nietzsche argues that Plato’s theory of the forms set a precedent for Western philosophy to prioritize objective standards—reason and logic—over subjective experience.)
Challenging the Major Assumption
Nietzsche argues that humans can’t obtain objective truth—all philosophy comes from subjective perspectives. He explains that human thoughts can’t exist independently of our perceptions, beliefs, and opinions, which come from our culture and values. We can’t appeal to an “objective standard” such as logic, reason, or cause and effect because we all have differing beliefs and opinions about what those concepts mean.
For example, Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” relies on subjectivity. His understanding of what it means to think or exist, and even his understanding of the self (“I”), all come from his subjective experiences. He learned what these words and ideas meant from the specific perspective of his society and culture, not from a universal standard.
(Shortform note: Nietzsche’s background informs his argument that humans can’t obtain objective truth. His main field was philology, or the study of language and how it evolves based on cultural context. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche applies a philological perspective to the language used in philosophical arguments, showing how the meanings of words change over time. Based on this perspective, he argues that since the very words used in philosophical arguments come from a specific cultural context, they’re subjective instead of universal.)
