Truth and Illusion
Can we distinguish between the two?
I think it is possible. However, not through practical differentiation; only through theoretical reasoning. That is to say, we should assume that everything we know of the world is illusion; we can test this, perhaps, by comparing our illusions of something with someone else’s to find that they’re slightly different, despite that the thing’s being simply is. That at least verifies the illusion. But we can’t verify the truth, we can only make ontological arguments that make bare assertion fallacies.
Distinguishing between a pursuit of truth and an embracing of illusion seems like a small difference at first, but I believe that it means mostly that we need to break out from the institutionalization of extro-centric (made that word up because I can’t think of one) thought; everything we’ve learned tells us that it aims towards ‘perfect forms’ or things in an ‘afterlife’ but what Neitszche wants is to give value to our current lives and our present. We do this by turning the focus away from the environment and back to ourselves, from which all things are sympthomatic.
The idea that “God is Dead” isn’t just with regards to the falling influence of religion– “If he isn’t, we must kill him” suggests also our responsibility to take control of our own directions by not accepting traditional opression of extro-centered truths.