Passage from On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense by Nietzsche

In what ways do we cope with the truth and lies?

Angela Response

            Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense stretches our brains by forcing us to question what we think is reality. He also tries to convince us that we aren’t capable of “knowing” anything, and no wonder...

“This art of dissimulation reaches its peak in man. Deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself-in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity-is so much the rule and the law among men that there is almost nothing which is less comprehensible than how an honest and pure drive for truth could have arisen among them.” (Nietzsche, p.1)

            This passage makes me think of all the “acceptable lies” we are taught when we are young. Of course these differ depending upon culture, environment, religion etc. but consider Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and the tooth-fairy, just to name a few. Have you ever been told when opening a present from someone not to act like you don’t like it? Ever spent money you know you really didn’t have? Ever pay unworthy compliments to someone you wanted or needed to impress? Act like you were brave in front of your children to set a good example? What about the infamous, does this make me look fat? I know these are all seem harmless but they do contribute—on a simpler scale—to the fact that we use truth and illusion intermittently to our own advantage.

            Look at the media for example and with the way people can manipulate images, text, voicemails, cameras etc. The ways in which we can be “lied” to is endless in this technological world. Lehrer pointed to ways that scientists, pharmaceutical corporations, and publicists bend the truth even if it means risking the health of others. (Selective reporting, publication bias or significance chasing)

            In a world with such dishonest practices, people, and social influence, the best I can do is stay true to me, and to who I believe I am. How could anyone take that away from me or disprove it?

·         I take the stairs because it is my way of being thankful for the ability to do so—

·         If I catch myself saying that I’m starving I remind myself that there are people all over, some with distended stomachs, much hungrier than I.

·         I lost my father to cancer one week after my 10^th birthday so I take each day as a blessing and thank my mother often for who she is to me.

·         I appreciate what others have been through without judging--I have only walked in my own shoes.

·         I cannot stop my children from growing up so I relish every moment of innocence with them, even the smallest things. Taking my daughter to the park so I can watch her roller blade and smile in the sunlight; appreciating my son for all his help around the house and for watching Food Network with me just to be by my side, even though he hates the channel.

           

            Nietzsche is extremely critical of man settling for the illusion because he can never really know the truth and I think he is right. So my advice would be to make your illusion count, stay true to yourself it may be the only truth you will ever know.  

The Laugh of the Medusa by Helene Cixous
Link to Cixous reading

In the vein of DuPlessis, Cixous implores women to find their voice. To write without fear or guilt and to refute all stereotypes which have been forced upon them by man.

To write about the woman who refuses to stay in the “dark” and deserves to step into the light of who she really is, leaving the former facade of herself behind.

“And why don’t you write? Write! Writing is for you, you are for you; your body is yours, take it.” (Cixous, p. 876)

Cixous wants woman to know herself, body and soul and not hold back. To be seen not as an object defined by others but as someone in control of her wants, needs and desires.

In order for woman to truly write in this way she must know who she really is and agree to basically go to war with a society that has so wrongfully represented her—

How does she do this without being labeled insane, sacrilegious, or a conspirator? What price will she pay for knowing herself and acting on her true potential?

            Some of Cixous’ in depth descriptions of woman make me proud to be one and others make me feel as if she is trying so hard to make her point that she is being seen as a mad woman, obsessing over the process of freeing us from ourselves.   I think her message is passed over and maybe even misunderstood by a generation that did not live within the constraints she describes. How does one appreciate the need to break away from the “old” when their reality is grounded in the "new?"

            I remember being at an early childhood education conference years ago and one of the speakers was talking about behavior and explained that the reason why privileged children, i.e. those surrounded by love, support, a healthy environment, quality education etc. don’t appreciate it –is because they can.” They have the luxury to do so because it is all they know as opposed to a time in which Cixous is conveying, a period where women were merely objects, even property of men.  We are writing today on blogs and saying whatever we damn well please, can you imagine the suppression of which she speaks? I can empathize but will never know.  

            DuPlessis and Cixous both use metaphorical language to help us know.  They describe how woman has been denied expression of any sort and thought of as completely inferior to man. Ironic, how much responsibility falls on a woman, yet they are considered last, if at all.

            In For the Etruscans DuPlessis writes about the wife who no one helped from the burning hut and compares her to a most-important language that was the last to be deciphered. Cixous, p. 880 also speaks to the duplicative roles of woman and how they are expected to be everything but are still never enough.

“…guilty at every turn: for having desires, for not having any; for being frigid, for being “too hot”; for not being both at once…”

            Yet there is another side to Cixous that builds the woman up by declaring her uniqueness and empowering her to realize and act on her potential.

 “But  what strikes me is the infinite  richness  of  their individual  constitutions:  you  can't talk about a female sexuality, uniform,  homogeneous, classifiable  into codes-any more than  you can  talk  about one unconscious resembling another.” (Cixous, p. 876) and  "It is time to liberate the New Woman from the Old by coming to know her—by loving her for getting by, for getting beyond the Old without delay, by going out ahead of what the New Woman will be, as an arrow quite the bow with a movement that gathers and separates the vibrations musically, in order to be more than herself.” (Cixous, p. 878)
            I applaud Cixous and DuPlessis for their ability to translate raw emotion into words. For their powerful way of expressing the struggle between trying to get woman to appreciate all she is and balancing that with the strength, courage, even rage needed to finally stand up for that woman  in the face of resistance and scrutiny. I don’t know how exactly the women before me have overcame such internal and external strife to find  the voice they have today—but this new woman is grateful.

It was, and for some parts of the world still is a great risk to write this way and we are only doing so now because of those who took it.

Link to Malcolm X LEARNING TO READ

Like Malcolm X my grandfather was self-taught. His education was much more from the source, rather than from the perspective of another. The homemade education is not limited by credits or programs or administered by bias instructors.  

1) So what are the pros and cons of a formal versus homemade education? And which would serve as a “better base” for expository writing?

On page 3 Malcolm X writes

“You can hardly show me a black adult in America‐‐or a white one, for that

matter—who knows from the history books anything like the truth about the black man’s role.”

 
and

“… But at the same time Toynbee is among those who have helped to bleach history. He has written that Africa was the only continent that produced no history. He won’t write that again. Every day now, the truth is coming to light.”

2) How would our ancient philosophers categorize the “bleached” version of history, that textbooks have used over the years to conceal rather than expose the truth about the past?

Frederick Douglas, Then and Now 1860 - 1960

Link to "A Plea for Free Speech in Boston" by Frederick Douglas

Video series--Race: The Power of an Illusion
http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0149

Brief summary:
Frederick Douglas, the human rights rhetorician. In this speech Frederick Douglas has all the makings of a persuasive orator. He speaks from first-hand knowledge derived from real life experiences, which appeals to his audience and commands their attention, whether they agree with him or not.

Douglas has an eloquent yet irrefutable logic in his style of writing that leaves people questioning their own beliefs, which is exactly what he wants and needs from his audience.

"It means to see the expressed idea and attitude from the other person's point of view,
to sense how it feels to him, to achieve his frame of reference in
regard to the thing he is talking about." Carl Rogers

Discussion question:
In 1860, was Frederick Douglas and leaders like him, with all their persuasive qualities, enough to get "others" to see their point of view? In 1960, why were people of color still having the same conversations regarding race and rights?

Angela's response--

Starvation, cold, abuse, separation… did not break him; he went on to be an impassioned writer, orator, and activist. His Plea for Free Speech in Boston is a poignant example of social discourse. But was he persuasive enough to undo what had already been done?

As I tried to grasp at the myriad of reasons for why Frederick Douglas had such a difficult time persuading others on the issues of slavery, race, and civil and human rights, I thought of a term used in our Aristotle reading, enthymeme. Wikipedia states--In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. I think the assumed missing piece in the argument over race lies in the myth of the term itself. Today there is evidence proving race cannot be defined by any biological standards. It is a social construct that some theorists believe was created in order to “divide and conquer.” A justification for dominance and greed, an illusion made concrete in the minds of the majority.

            In the time of slavery, the excuse of “race” told people of color that they were not human. They were considered savage and destined to be controlled by the superior, lighter race. In Frederick Douglas’ writings and speeches he had to find a way to get around the fact that this very crucial part of his argument was so assumed by the masses that it was left out or omitted from the psyche of those he was trying to persuade. His final statement in Boston, so eloquent, simple, just, and true…yet so many lost their lives, and still do, over 100 years later.

 “A man’s right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right—and there let it rest forever.”(Douglas, p. 372)

When will we persuade them all?

            I’d like to add just a few thoughts on a personal note regarding my own feelings on race—my own assumptions.

            My skin is fairly “light” and if I asked anyone what they would consider my race to be they would probably say white, yet I have never identified myself as such.  My parents aren’t from white country, and to this day I cannot find white or black country on the globe. White/black was created by society for some of the reasons I have already mentioned, and many other deplorable ones which I did not.  Biologically I am half Puerto Rican so I have always chosen Hispanic on any form I have ever had to fill out. If my husband were to ask the same question people would surely say his race was black.

            Back in the 80’s when “African American” (the latest among a long line of politically correct terms) was being considered there was an article about it in the paper and I asked my boyfriend at the time, “What would you rather have people call you, black or African American?” He said, “Why can’t I just be called Duane, it’s the name my mother gave me?”

            Twenty-three years together and two beautiful children later, I am proud of how my children see themselves and the lens in which they see the rest of the world. They are not bi-racial, mixed race or mixed up. On the form they are African American and Hispanic, in life they treat others how they want to be treated no matter what their biological make-up, they are cognizant of their heritage, invest in the development of their character and most importantly, they are proud to be Zinnia and Duane Jr. (the names their mother gave them)

                        The views my husband and I have on race probably would not have been
 popular in the 1800s. The majority did not share our benign view of the differences or non-differences between people, but this is my truth, this is what I bring to the text.  
One race, human, different looking humans, yes but …still human.