We often perceive knowledge as unquestionably correct, factual, and unbiased. However, popular notions of "truth," "knowledge," and "history" actually skew our perceptions of the past, present, and future. The discourses and wisdom we acquire inevitably taint our relationships with matter, spatiality, and time. German philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Walter Benjamin address the partiality of knowledge. Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" uses metaphor and the human condition to emphasize the subjective nature of knowledge, concepts, and truths, while Benjamin's "On the Concept of History" critiques historicism by criticizing written histories, historical materialism, and our belief that progress is good. In short, Nietzsche
…show more content…
Historical materialism, or the Marxist theory that political and historical events result from social conflict, is inherently connected with historicism; both regard social conflict as the cause of historical events. Benjamin blasts the supposed objectivity of historical materialism, however, by comparing it to The Turk (an automaton). He writes that the automaton, "called "historical materialism," is to win all the time. It can easily be a match for anyone if it enlists the services of theology, which today, as we know, is small and ugly and has to keep out of sight" (Benjamin 389). In other words, historical materialism is not an objective and scientific manner to interpret our histories. Like other subjective histories, historical materialism is simply another interpretation that skews our views of the past, present, and …show more content…
Through examining Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" and Benjamin's "On the Concept of History," it is apparent that Nietzsche and Benjamin's arguments complement each other. Although Nietzsche and Benjamin do not directly quote each other, they both view our notions of truth, knowledge, and history as skewed. The applications of their arguments to present problems and struggles, however, are less clear. Applying Nietzsche's arguments leads to a postmodernist vision of the future—that is, a nihilist future where absolutism does not exist. Knowledge and concepts are inherently biased, truths do not exist, and there is no realistic manner to escape the directionless reality we inhabit. Benjamin's arguments come to similar conclusions to Nietzsche's arguments. His outlook of the future, however, is brighter. If we remember our past and reject historicism, Benjamin argues there is a "small gateway in time through which the Messiah might enter" (Benjamin 397). For Benjamin, we are the bringers of change; we are the literal messiahs. Nietzsche and Benjamin attempt to change our perspectives on "truth," "knowledge," and "history." Our current attachment to the supposedly objective nature of knowledge is what imprisons us from changing the world for the better. We are brought up to fully believe the histories we are taught. However, if
Historical materialism, or the Marxist theory that political and historical events result from social conflict, is inherently connected with historicism; both regard social conflict as the cause of historical events. Benjamin blasts the supposed objectivity of historical materialism, however, by comparing it to The Turk (an automaton). He writes that the automaton, "called "historical materialism," is to win all the time. It can easily be a match for anyone if it enlists the services of theology, which today, as we know, is small and ugly and has to keep out of sight" (Benjamin 389). In other words, historical materialism is not an objective and scientific manner to interpret our histories. Like other subjective histories, historical materialism is simply another interpretation that skews our views of the past, present, and …show more content…
Through examining Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense" and Benjamin's "On the Concept of History," it is apparent that Nietzsche and Benjamin's arguments complement each other. Although Nietzsche and Benjamin do not directly quote each other, they both view our notions of truth, knowledge, and history as skewed. The applications of their arguments to present problems and struggles, however, are less clear. Applying Nietzsche's arguments leads to a postmodernist vision of the future—that is, a nihilist future where absolutism does not exist. Knowledge and concepts are inherently biased, truths do not exist, and there is no realistic manner to escape the directionless reality we inhabit. Benjamin's arguments come to similar conclusions to Nietzsche's arguments. His outlook of the future, however, is brighter. If we remember our past and reject historicism, Benjamin argues there is a "small gateway in time through which the Messiah might enter" (Benjamin 397). For Benjamin, we are the bringers of change; we are the literal messiahs. Nietzsche and Benjamin attempt to change our perspectives on "truth," "knowledge," and "history." Our current attachment to the supposedly objective nature of knowledge is what imprisons us from changing the world for the better. We are brought up to fully believe the histories we are taught. However, if