Comparing the concept of lying in Rousseau and Nietzsche

In society, the concept of a lie is perceived as immoral and unethical. Yet most people, regardless of class status, power or social background have been involved in the scheme of a lie. Philosophers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Nietzsche agree that the lie has significant power in modern society. But they differ on how the lies are used or manipulated in political life. Rousseau notes that lies are mainly told by the powerful to exert influence over the weak. But Nietzsche believes that the lies of the weak have total dominance over the lies of the powerful. Essentially, the paper explores the concepts of both philosophers and the logic behind the acceptance of lies.
In Basic Political Writings, Rousseau views lies as the basic foundation of modern society, mainly used by powerful dictates to exert control over powerless individuals. He focuses on the nature and influence of freedom by noting that every man possesses a personal freedom, which cannot be controlled or manipulated by societal influences. He asserts that man is both physically and mentally free form societal constraints. Rousseau believed that society is surrounded by superficial necessities and freedom allows one to relieve himself from those social constraints.
Rousseau’s philosophy of inequality is based on his ideas of “man in the state of nature.” He notes that all men are equal and that the only inequalities they have are in their physical capabilities. He further suggests that men are instinctively happy and only need a few essential things to survive in life. However, he notes that when individuals are involved in a society where laws, government and property ownership are prevalent, they lose their natural state and become corrupted by the inequalities of society.
The mind has its needs, as does the body. The needs of the latter are the foundations of society; the needs of the former make it pleasant. While the government and the laws see to the safety and well-being of assembled men, the sciences, letters and the arts, less despotic and perhaps more powerful, spread garlands of flowers over the iron chains with which they are burdened, stifle in them the sense of that original liberty for which they seem to have been born, make them love their slavery, and turn them into what is called civilized peoples (Rousseau, 1987).
Thus, in America, the disparities between classes, wealthy and poor, are an example of the inequalities in modern society. Political leaders with wealth and power use these inequalities as a basis to gain votes and public opinion. They present false hopes or lies, such as guaranteeing better jobs and more money to the poorer communities, so that they will vote for them and keep them in a higher position. This exemplifies Rousseau’s ideal of inequality, because the powerful use lies to maintain their control over the weak, and the weak accept these lies because of the perceived benefit it may provide them.
Furthermore, Rousseau believed that law and government limited individual freedom. He believed that property and other materialistic elements that dominated modern society constrained freedom. The Social Contract suggests that a perfect government is one that recognizes and places the freedom of its citizens on a high level. Rousseau’s idea of freedom and societal constraints can be viewed in present society where society places high value on “false needs,” such as expensive cars, jewelry and money. Individuals do not possess mental freedom because their freedoms are ruled by pretentious “needs,” which are the basis of the lies of society.
If you consider the emotional turmoil that consumes us, the violent passions that exhaust and desolate us, the excessive labors with which the poor are overburdened, the still more dangerous softness to which the rich abandon themselves, and which cause the former to die of their needs and latter of their excesses; if you call to mind the monstrous combinations of foods, their pernicious seasonings, the corrupted foodstuffs, tainted drugs, the knavery of poison of the vessels in which they are prepared…(Rousseau, 1987).
Rousseau’s concept of “needs” reflect the present state of people in a democratic society. For instance, most Americans are bound like slaves to the materialistic desires in society such as expensive cars, homes and fancy clothes. Thus, many citizens are consumers of “false needs.” These pretentious desires control their freedoms because they are constantly in pursuit of unnecessary needs, which help them to enjoy and define their existence. In modern society, many individuals identify themselves and others through superficial things, which allow them to feel more powerful than their counterparts. Rousseau viewed the natural state of men as inherently good, but they lacked the rational and moral values needed to control their own freedoms, which leads them to become immoral and untrue through societal corruption.
At first it would seem that men in that state, having among them no type of moral relations or acknowledged duties, could be neither good nor evil, and had neither vices nor virtues, unless, if we take these words in a physical sense, we call those qualities that can harm an individual’s preservation “vices” in him, and those that can contribute to it “virtues.” In that case it would be necessary to call the one who least resists the simple impulses of nature the most virtuous. But without departing from the standard meaning of these words, it is appropriate to suspend the judgment we could make regarding such a situation and to be on our guard against our prejudices, until we have examined with scale in hand whether there are more virtues or vices among civilized men (Rousseau, 1987).
Thus in the social contract, Rousseau views political power as chains on personal freedom. He notes that government authority can only exist with the mutual consent of all citizens. In a civil society, Rousseau notes that the sovereign or the general will involves people collectively joining together to provide for the common good of all. He notes that the soverign places the sum benefits of all people over their own personal benefits. Rousseau suggests that a sovreign is needed to maintain a stable and functional government. He notes that the laws that govern society must reflect the general will of all people.
Furthermore, Rousseau asserts that education helps to develop characteristics of the ideal natural man. He uses the fictional figure, Emile, to show how man can attain the natural “good” qualities through education to combat a corruptive society. Rousseau points to the different states of intellect development to show the educational structure of a perfect natural man. Throughout childhood and adolescence, Rousseau notes that men should learn both the physical and mental characteristics necessary to avoid the corruption or lies of society. He also notes that men should be free thinkers and develop their own truths about the world and religion.
For instance, in modern society, many people follow the religious paths of their families. Priests and preachers strongly influence an individual’s faith and their lifestyles. According to Rousseau’s education philosophy, the church exemplifies one of the corruptions of society. Individuals are not free to learn and discover his own truth, but must accept exaggerated truths or lies by the church, which he views as a higher authority.
In Confessions, Rousseau shows his own imperfections and weaknesses. His lust for women and some of his irrational choices and mistakes reveal his own shortcomings. Yet, through Confessions, Rousseau shows that imperfections do not determine an individual’s state of nature. He notes that he is still inherently good despite his weaknesses, and is no less “evil” than other humans. Essentially, Rousseau shows his experiences, which shaped his adulthood and show he developed his own perspectives and truths about the world.
On the Genealogy of Morals explores the idea of the lie and the morality of different social classes. Nietzsche uses the concepts of “good and evil” to show the different moral values of the wealthy and the poor. “Master morality” refers to the wealthy who view their power and governance to be good and the impoverished individuals to be “bad.” Nietzsche states that “slave morality” refers to the morality of those poor individuals who view their economic and social status as “good” and the power and wealth of upper-class people as “evil.” Nietzsche views slave morality as more dominant than master morality because it is deeply rooted in Christian sentiments and developed from hatred.
Yet although Nietzsche asserts that slave morality dominates master morality, he notes that slave morality is essentially bad. He asserts that individuals who possess the slave morality are preoccupied with thoughts of contempt and hatred and cannot fully enjoy life or allow others to be happy and improve their state. Nietzsche’s concept can also be used in present society where racial disparities are prevalent. For instance, some African Americans and Hispanics, especially those from low-income households hold contempt and hate for many powerful, wealthy political officers.
Many feel as if their impoverished state is a result of the tyranny of the white and wealthy class of society, which shows their view of powerful political leaders as “bad,” and they view that their judgment toward them is true and justified because of their destitute state. On the other hand, the wealthy and powerful political officials of society may view their poorer, powerless counterparts as weak or “bad” because they lack power and social status. Thus, in modern society, lower class minorities may be viewed as possessing the “slave morality” and the wealthy possesses the “master morality.”
Through “Guilt and Bad Conscience,” Nietzsche illustrates the concept of justice in society. He notes that societal laws are similar to punishments that creditors force upon people in debt. He asserts that moral values do not exist in the idea of justice because it is not the individuals who punish others for their wrongdoing, but it is the laws who enforce punishment upon the lawbreakers. This idea is evident in modern government as criminals and murders are placed in prisons for alleged crimes. However, the guilty blame the police or judges for placing them in prison, when in fact, they have broken the law which governs society and states that stealing and killing is wrong.
Nietzsche also suggests that humans are born with a bad conscience due to animal instincts. He notes that by suppressing in violent animalistic traits, humans have developed a form of contempt toward their ancestral past. Nietzsche states that humans should have a bad conscience toward forces in society that force them to suppress their animal instincts rather than condemning themselves for possessing primitive and animalistic traits. For instance, in modern society violent criminals are sometimes considered “psychotic” because of their inability to no longer suppress their violent, primitive traits. However, violent killing, regardless of the mental state of the person is considered wrongful and punishable. Thus, suppression of part of one’s identity can be viewed as a good and true because it prevents harm to others.
Furthermore, Nietzsche views asceticism as a way for individuals to feel as if they have power over themselves, even if in society they are considered powerless. For instance, former prostitutes, gang members or people who committed adultery turn to church and religion to feel powerful within their selves, even though they may be outcast by society. He uses the idea of religion to show how people use the ascetics of religion to heal the sickness of the mind and meditate. He suggests that science is another ascetic, where humans rely on the truth to will meaning and purpose in life rather than on a higher power, God. Overall, he notes that either way, science or religion, people rely on these ascetics to will some form of purpose or power within their own lives.
To renounce belief in one's ego, to deny one's own "reality" -- what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason -- a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: "there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it (Nietzsche, 1967).
Essentially, Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power defines how people in society view a lie and why many people accept it. In the case of “good and evil,” the wealthy and powerful hold that their status is righteous and people in poverty are “bad.” People accept this lie because it allows them to feel dominant and have power over others. However, the same is the case of lower class people who feel that the wealthy, upper-class are “evil” and that their own class status should be considered as “good” because this allows them to feel powerful, even though they do not possess the authority and wealth of wealthy, political leaders.
Thus, Nietzsche suggests that “good and evil” can take on different meanings depending upon the person who interprets the concept. Ultimately, he views the slave morality as more superior than master morality because many individuals view good or bad, truth or lie based on feelings and perspectives of society that was originated from their ancestral past, which shape the way they view and judge others. But he does not agree that slave morality is the most logical or true moral value. Nietzsche notes that slave morality denies individuals of freedom and autonomy to develop their own judgments aside from their traditionalized perceptions of society.
There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect (Nietzsche, 1967).
Either directly or indirectly, the lie has shaped many areas of societal life, especially in politics. As the fight over power is most prevalent in modern society, the lie is used to either win the favor of the public or denounce other powerful figures. Although lies are essentially the judgment of one individual versus another, many people believe in a lie to have meaning and purpose in life. Lies shape the perspectives of different individuals and opens up points for debate. As evidenced by Rousseau and Nietzsche, lies are an extension of one’s inner thoughts, attained knowledge and individual perspectives of society.
But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation for its future "objectivity" -- the latter understood not as "contemplation without interest" (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge (Nietzsche, 1967).
As illustrated by Rousseau, the powerful use lies to increase their power and wealth. This is prevalent in modern society as some crooked, powerful political leaders speak about laws and legislations that could benefit the less powerful and poor, yet are really only beneficiary to their own livelihoods. It allows the powerful to gain the popular votes of the public to maintain their political authority and power status. Thus, it only keeps the powerless under their control. Due to the impotent state of powerless citizens, they accept these lies because it helps them to feel a sense of power and purpose in their life. Although they are aware of the potential falseness of the political leaders, and the little if no benefit it may have on their lives, they continue to vote for them because of the idea of feeling empowered and in control of their own destinies.
But according to Nietzsche, the lies of the weak supersede the lies of the powerful because they have deep feelings connected to their lies. The contempt and hatred that impoverished individuals hold toward powerful, wealthy people is much stronger because they have deep inner feelings and thoughts. In modern society, many minorities hold this same feeling. This gives them “power of the soul” because they base their judgments of the powerful on biblical precepts and religious faith, which they consider true. Religion allows them to gain control over their lives and their perceptions of the powerful, who they view as “evil.”
But Rousseau views religion as “dogma of the church.” He urges individuals to discover their own truth about God without the dictates of high authority, such as priests or preachers. He argues that the church constrains the individual thought of humans, compelling them to act and believe in the truths told to them by more powerful figures. Rousseau notes that religion can cripple the individual freedom if one does not gain knowledge and truth on his own.
Arguably, both Rousseau and Nietzsche make valid points regarding the lies of the weak and the powerful. Ultimately, a lie is in the eye of the beholder. What one person views as the truth, can easily be interpreted as a lie by another person who possesses different perceptions, thoughts and ideals. Thus, lies are judgments based on an individual’s personal perspectives. The powerless may feel that their judgments toward the powerful and wealthy as greedy and “evil” as true and the powerful may feel as if their judgments toward the weak and impoverished people are true because they lack power or wealth.
What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist (Nietzsche, 1967).
Essentially, people accept these lies because of the perceived benefit it may have on their own personal lives. In modern society, people make judgments and decisions based on their perceptions of moral and ethical values. Yet, because of racial and class disparities in society, people have different ideals on truths and lies. Also, the ever-changing trends of society force individuals to alter their perceptions and ideals, which can only blur the lines between truth and lie. Yet people accept and believe the lies that benefit them either spiritually, emotionally or financially. Thus, individual perspectives and motives shape one’s judgments and form the foundation for how and why an individual defines and accepts lies.
References
Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (1967). On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic. New York: Random House Publishing.
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques. (1987). The Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett
Publishing Company.