Analysis Of Nietzsche's 'Error'

The question argued, is about the claim that all understanding involves interpretation, and that all interpretation is inherently perspectival. I will talk about Nietzsche’s claim that all truths are “errors”, Gadamer’s view that all understanding involves interpretation, his notion of “effective historical consciousness” and Schott’s critical stance when finally, I will add my own personal thoughts on how understanding involves interpretation. Nietzsche says that all truths are “errors” that human beings find useful. He states that “Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value of life is ultimately decisive”. There are no disinterested knowledge or understandings, all interpretations we consume …show more content…
The meaning of the will to power is everything we think that becomes conscious and it becomes arranged into a sequence into our brains, then interpreted through and through to have an improved understanding. All life seeks to express its particular kind of power which means different types of people will see power in a view that is not seen by other types causing them to have a versatile understanding of what is happening around them. Nietzsche refers to the will to power as an iceberg where the casual connection between thoughts, feelings and desires are the top of the iceberg and can be seen. Whereas, the subject and the object of a certain power are hidden from us, as they appear to be purely imaginary this is represented to be the bottom of the iceberg, where it can not be seen by others. The apparent inner world has the same factors such as forms and procedures as the outer world. The iceberg concept is also related to our consciousness which is developed as a need to communicate. This is true because, the bottom of an iceberg where we cannot look at is like our brain, it stores our …show more content…
He notes that if one person seeks to out-argue the other person, to have hisher own will prevail, that individual is not falling into a true conversation where no one knows where it will lead in the end. Gadamer omits a range of factors which inform our empirical conversations, such as ideology. Meaning if someone tries to have a conversation with another person and they try to out smart the other with knowledge nether of the two people will know how the conversation will end, what they are saying is nether true or untrue. So one’s beliefs are just as correct as the others. Gadamer also says that interpretation involves interaction which is a form of dialogue between an interpreter and the object being interpreted. With this being said if a person is reading a text or looking at a picture and is unclear about a given thing they are able to ask questions and form interaction to further understand what the message is trying to be