Interpreting Reality: Nietzsche, Saussure, and the Construction of Knowledge

AI art

Introduction

The notion that reality is not simply given but shaped through interpretation finds powerful articulation in the works of two philologists who transformed modern thought: Friedrich Nietzsche and Ferdinand de Saussure. While Nietzsche famously asserted, "I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations,"[1] Saussure, working within the confines of linguistics, claimed, "The object is not given in advance of the viewpoint: far from it. Rather, one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object."[2] Though their domains differed, both thinkers challenged the positivist faith in objective facts and laid the groundwork for what would later be known as perspectivism and structuralism, respectively—terms neither of them used. This article explores how these parallel insights interrogate the idea of pre-existing truths and reframe knowledge as perspectival and system-dependent.

Nietzsche’s Perspectivism: Interpretation as Reality

Nietzsche's radical epistemological stance emerges clearly in The Will to Power, where he writes: "There are no facts, only interpretations. We cannot determine any fact 'in itself': perhaps it is nonsense to want to do such a thing."[3] This outlook forms the basis of what later scholars termed "perspectivism," the view that all knowledge is bound to a particular standpoint—a confluence of history, language, power, and will.

This philosophical posture is not a rejection of knowledge per se but a critique of the assumption that truth is an objective mirror of reality. In On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche writes: "There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective 'knowing'"[4]. Knowing, then, is not the unveiling of a hidden essence but a creative act shaped by interpretative frames. Far from nihilistic, this approach liberates inquiry by exposing the contingencies behind supposedly immutable truths.

Saussure’s Linguistic Constructivism

Ferdinand de Saussure, though confined to linguistics, offers a comparable challenge to positivist epistemology. In his Course in General Linguistics, Saussure questions the assumption that language is a transparent medium for expressing pre-existing ideas. Instead, he shows that linguistic meaning arises from the differential relations within a structured system. His statement that "the object is not given in advance of the viewpoint... it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object"[2] signifies a profound shift: linguistic facts are not empirically available objects but the products of analytic perspective.

Saussure illustrates this with the example of the French word nu ("naked"). A phonetician hears articulatory sounds; a psychologist considers cognitive associations; a historical linguist traces its etymology to Latin nūdum. Each disciplinary lens constructs a different object from the same utterance, revealing the perspectival nature of linguistic analysis.[5]

Yet, Saussure maintains that linguistics is unique in this regard: "Other sciences are provided with objects of study given in advance... Nothing like that is the case in linguistics."[6] This claim, however, underestimates the extent to which all scientific fields rely on constructed frameworks and methodological choices.

Beyond Linguistics: The Generalization of Perspective

Nietzsche extends this principle beyond any single domain, arguing that even the sciences are interpretive acts. As he provocatively puts it: "Against positivism, which halts at phenomena—'There are only facts' —I would say: no, facts are just what there aren't, only interpretations."[1] Modern physics, for instance, does not describe the world as it is, but as it appears under specific models: Newtonian mechanics, quantum theory, or relativity each offers a different rendering of phenomena. Similarly, in geology, a single rock formation may be interpreted structurally, mineralogically, or paleontologically.

In this light, Saussure's insight applies more broadly than he allowed. His claim that linguistics uniquely creates its objects overlooks the parallel constructivism in other sciences. The difference lies in Saussure’s disciplinary humility: he sought to legitimize linguistics as a science amidst positivist norms, while Nietzsche aimed to undermine those very norms across the board.

The Role of Language in Shaping Knowledge

A striking commonality between Nietzsche and Saussure is their training in philology, the historical study of texts and languages. This background likely attuned them to the mediating role of language in all forms of knowledge. For Nietzsche, language is not a neutral tool but a force that shapes the contours of what can be thought or said. He warns, "The thing-in-itself' is nonsense. It is not a 'fact', but a fable devised to explain."[7]

Saussure, too, insists that meaning is not inherent but arises from relational differences within a linguistic system. In both cases, language is not a vehicle for accessing reality but a condition of that access. It follows that any claim to objectivity must grapple with the linguistic and interpretive scaffolding that makes it possible.

Conclusion

The convergence between Nietzsche and Saussure lies in their shared rejection of the myth of the given—the belief in a ready-made world waiting to be known. Nietzsche extends this critique to all domains of knowledge, revealing how interpretation permeates even the so-called hard sciences. Saussure, operating within linguistics, reveals how the analyst's viewpoint determines the object of study. Though neither coined the terms "perspectivism" or "structuralism," their insights laid the groundwork for these later developments.

Derrida would later point out that neither thinker fully escapes metaphysics: Saussure clings to the notion of a stable linguistic system (la langue), while Nietzsche risks reinstalling a foundational principle in the guise of the "will to power."[8] Yet for Derrida, this entrapment is not failure but the very condition of critique. Perhaps, as he suggests, we cannot exit metaphysics entirely, but only work from within—always aware that our truths are also our interpretations.

 Related Post:

The Gilded Coin: Art and Religion in Nietzsche as Forms of Illusion and Affirmation

https://nietzscheanlinguistics.blogspot.com/2025/05/blog-post_157.html

References

1.      Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale (New York: Vintage, 1968), §508.

2.      Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 9.

3.      Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §500.

4.      Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, Book III, §12.

5.      Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, pp. 14–15.

6.      Ibid., p. 8.

7.      Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "Reason in Philosophy," §3.

8.      Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), pp. 24–25.