1

Throughout the works of Nietzsche and Plato, the concept of language comes up
quite frequently particularly the use of words to define ideas or forms. In order to further
understand the works of these two thinkers, you must begin at their ability to express
these ideas. The foundation of these ideas lies in their varying views of the true meaning
behind words or forms in the case of Socrates. Language and the forms that words
stand for create a basis for understanding what the two thinkers are talking about and
therefore provides a ground for the rest of their theories to stand on. By dissecting their
views on language and the truth, or lack there of, behind words, their views about
everything else seem much clearer.
The founder of philosophy spent a lot of time discussing the ideas or
forms that lie behind the term used for each. For instance, in Euthyphro, Socrates
continues to press the character of Euthyphro about what exactly do these terms he is so
fond of mean. He says in this dialogue, . . . what kind of thing do you say that godliness
and ungodliness are . . . or is the pious not the same and alike in every action . . . (5d) In
this particular dialogue, the main focus is piety. Through this conversation, the reader
sees what Socrates views as important in determining the form behind piety. Socrates
does not locate the form behind a term in the examples of that thing happening. When
Euthyphro suggests, . . . that the pious is to do what I ma doing now, to prosecute the
wrongdoer. (5d) Socrates rejects this model because it cannot be applied to every case.
As the discussion continues, Socrates probes Euthyphro to get closer to the form.
Euthyphro eventually claims that the true form of piety exists thanks to the gods and that
whatever the gods want or approve of is pious and what they dont like is impious.
Socrates rejects this response because it varies from god to god which leads to what
2
Socrates really wants in Euthyphros answer. The true form of something is revealed
when you can apply that definition to all cases in order to determine if piety exists. With
the example of piety, Socrates wants the one true form of piety, which then can be used
to categorize all other scenarios in order to deem them pious or impious.
As later defined by Plato in his Republic, he views the forms as the fullest and
truest version of something. In the form lies the truth. Plato addresses the form quite
frequently and uses it as almost a cornerstone to his philosophy. The form is attainable
and can be reached through thought and analysis opposed to being reached through the
senses. When he discusses the divided line, here, Plato divides the regions of thought into
four categories starting with opinion and ending with understanding. The understanding
section is where the form falls. Plato argues that once you reach this level of
understanding, you will not longer need images to help understand the true form since it
is able to exist through reason and logic opposed to the more tangible things. This same
argument is presented through the use of images in Platos cave allegory. In the image he
creates, there is the visible realm inside the cave where the prisoners reside which is the
section of the divided line that relies on the senses opposed to higher forms of thinking.
As the prisoner that escapes moves out of the cave, he or she gets closer to the intelligible
realm and in turn, the truth. The ascent up the cave to what is good as well as his
description of the divided line, clearly illustrates Platos views on what is truth in its
fullest form and what is the highest form of thinking. Furthermore, the form of something
is accessible if one drags oneself out of the cave no matter how difficult it may be.
The form is also the one true version of something and as he discusses with
Euthyphro, the form is what something actually is. This is explained in the Republic
3
when Socrates is talking with Glaucon and says in reference to forms like beauty, Each
of them is itself one, but because they manifest themselves everywhere in association
with actions, bodies and one another, each of them appears to be many. (476a)
Essentially, Plato is saying that there is one true version of something, for instance
beauty, and this true form of beauty appears in many different things. Beauty can
manifest itself in a person, a flower, a sunset, a painting but there is one true form of
beauty. This also ties back to what is discussed in Euthyphro; one characteristic of a form
is it can act as a mold that can then be applied to all other scenarios.
Nietzsches writings take more of a critical look at language opposed to just
accepting the words for what they are. However, he writes regarding the same concept of
forms or ideas. Nietzsche though does not refer to them as forms and focuses more on the
concept of language and its relation to forms. He begins by asking, What is a word? It is
the copy in sound of a nerve stimulus. But the further inference from the nerve stimulus
to a cause outside of us is already the result of a false and unjustifiable application of the
principle of sufficient reason. He argues that there is no innate definition behind a word.
This is proven by the fact that many languages exist and if there were something innate
about a rock that makes it distinctly a rock and that is the only term that could ever
be used to label it, there would be one universal language. Since each language has
different terms for the same object or concept, the use of words is foolish. By applying
one word to something that is inherently different from something else that is labeled the
same, according to Nietzsche, this further separates the form from the truth that the
form. This is to say that Nietzsche believes the truth starts in the thing itself, for
instance a chair. This chair is the truest version of itself and we will never be able to fully
4
understand the truth of that chair because we can never become the chair to understand it.
The closest we can get to the truth is through our senses and our immediate sensation of
something. But then, we apply a word to it, which strips this chair of its uniqueness and
makes it synonymous with all other chairs. Then once we start talking about the chair we
move further away from the truth and we end up even further when we attempt to apply a
form to all chairs. The chair in this scenario is what Nietzsche describes as the
mysterious x and it is unattainable. In Nietzsches eyes, by even attempting to discuss
the true meaning of concepts, we are already separating that concept from the truth.
By looking at words critically, he recognizes the categories that everything is put
into. He argues that by labeling similar things as the same thing, like the aforementioned
leaf, we are forced to ignore the many differences between the leaves. So, in this
scenario, there is no true form of a leaf because each leaf is unique and cannot be distilled
into a form that can be applied to each and every leaf. He also discusses the term
honesty and its relation to language. He says that honesty is merely using the words we
have collectively agreed on. A dishonest person will not use the words collectively
agreed on. For instance if some is poor but they say that they are rich, they would be
viewed as dishonest. Nietzsche describes this by saying, . . . what they hate is basically
not deception itself but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of
deception.
These two thinkers, despite their many differences, have a few things in common
regarding their opinions on forms and concepts. At the most basic level, both
philosophers recognize the impact language has on the forms of things. They see the way
society has put labels on everything and how people are inclined to categorize and group
5
things and concepts into schemas that make communication simpler. In addition, both
philosophers recognize the general desire for humans to find the truth, though they
disagree about where the truth itself lies.
While these two thinkers both recognize the socially importance of terms that
define a form or idea, they disagree over the importance of the actual form or idea. Plato
views the form as the truest possible form. Nietzsche on the other hand sees the form or
concept in the mind as being far from the truth since it is so far removed from the actual
thing. Each step that you take away from the mysterious x, the further away you get from
the truth. If you think in terms of the divided line, Plato places the true form of
something as the best possible understanding of that thing. When Nietzsches opinions
are laid out on the divided line, it almost completely reverses since he thinks of the form
as being something created in the mind opposed to being the actual thing. To Nietzsche,
the truth is closest to the visible realm because the senses are the closest in progression
to the mysterious x. Plato on the other hand thinks that the senses are deceptive and
therefore the farthest from the truth. Nietzsche does not hide his disagreement with Plato
well and when he writes How the True World Finally Became a Fable, he mentions
Plato saying the history of an error begins when someone believes, The true world
attainable for a man who is wise, pious, virtuous . . .
Another discrepancy between the two is where they view the origin of the forms.
Plato believes that there is one true form and that is then later manifested in many things
as recognized in the aforementioned quote about one thing that is then manifested in
many things. Nietzsche once again takes the teachings of Plato and switches them around
in order to argue the contrary. Instead of there being one true form that is then manifested
6
in many things, Nietzsche looks at each individual thing for its uniqueness, meaning that
there is one thing that is manifested in one thing. The solitary leaf for instance is the
truest version of itself but it is not the truest version of leaves and is not a mold to
apply to all leaves. The leaf example differs from the example of piety provided in
Platos piece because it is tangible. When looking at two leaves side by side you can
clearly see the differences between the two leaves due to their shape or the pattern of the
veins. However, Nietzsche seems to think that the same thought process that happens in
the leaf example could be applied to all other things such as piety and justice. Each act
that we label pious or just has just as many differences as the leaf. In the same sense, we
look at the few things they have in common instead of taking into account all of their
differences.
What I find most interesting about the discussion regarding forms is the fact that
the thoughts have not really changed over time. There is still this search for the genesis of
these terms and their impact. We see Socrates trying to find the form behind piety and
justice and then Nietzsche try to dismantle that argument and then even more recent,
Butlers argument about gender terms. At first read, I agree more with Nietzsche than
Socrates. Nietzsches argument seems to be based more in real life and less in the
theoretical world that Plato at times resides in. Even though Nietzsche says that there is
no possible way for humans to fully comprehend something because humans can never
be the things we hope to find out about, I still find his theory to be more realistic than
Plato. Plato operates under the assumption that with enough thought and analysis we can
discover the true form of abstract concepts. To me, it seems a little nave of Plato to
assume that humans can ever reach the true form of something. His theory seems a little
7
simple to me, not the process of reaching enlightenment but the concept that all of the
many and complex things can be distilled down into one form or idea. But, this makes me
wonder if Plato or Socrates or anyone else for that matter ever actually reached this level
of enlightenment. Plato proposes that everyone can access the truth if they philosophize
about it but is this goal realistic? He also says that we should be able to think without
images, a theory that he explains using images. And if you in fact can never reach the
truth, does his theory differ so much from Nietzsches? If Plato does not actually believe
that it is possible to reach the truth, that the truth rests in some mysterious x that cannot
be accessed, the only difference between the two is the direction we go to get closest to it.
Nietzsche moves closer to the sense and the visible realm while Plato moves to the
intelligible realm but both are unable to attain the truth.
This brings me to a problem I had with Nietzsches theory the first time I read it.
At first read, it seemed to me that he discusses mostly the differences between tangible
things and how we disregard the uniqueness but he never really discusses the abstract
terms that Plato occupies his thoughts with. This made me wonder how would Nietzsche
address the intangible? Since he puts most of the emphasis on the senses, which are the
closest thing to the physical form of something, how would he recommend finding the
form behind something that cannot be seen? Or does he view these abstract concepts such
as beauty and justice as being like knowledge meaning that it can never be found? This
reminds me of when Nietzsche refers to humans as the genius of construction and how
these abstract terms may just are another thing humans built in order to provide goals for
us. I then realized that he views the intangibles in life, justice, beauty, piety etc., as just
as abstract as the things that we consider tangible. Just because these things are easily
8
accessed by the senses doesnt mean that we are any closer to knowing the truth about
them. We can still sense when we see justice or piety but then we attach a word to it and
it is no longer as organic as it was when we first saw it.
As I thought about Nietzsches theory, it reminded me of ballet. Each step in
ballet is meant to look the same way. There is a correct way to do a grande jet so that
every person that does one will look exactly the same. Meaning that the term grande jet
is not used to describe many different things, as is justice or piety. There is supposed to
be one absolute and correct form of this step and the differences between each dancer are
noticed because one is correct and the other is incorrect. This made me wonder what
Nietzsche would say about something like that where we have created this step and this
term to match this step and have deemed only one version of it correct. Is this just another
construction by humans or is this closer to the truth because there is only one form of a
grande jet so that it can actually be called a grande jet?
Both of these philosophers raise interesting points about the origin of the true
form of a thing but I think that the best part about philosophy is that these questions dont
necessarily have to be answered. They just guide the reader and get them to engage and
think about things more whether it is the form or truth. It reminds me of in Descartes
First Meditation where he says that everyone should take time once in their lives to
think about their views on ideas and truth and everything in between. These are not
problems or debates that have a correct answer but rather thoughts that can shape
perception of daily life.