Nietzsche said "What things are called is far more important than what they are" what did he mean by this

Answer 1

Nietzsche explains it himself quite well:

"Every word instantly becomes a concept precisely insofar as it is not supposed to serve as a reminder of the unique and entirely individual original experience to which it owes its origin; but rather, a word becomes a concept insofar as it simultaneously has to fit countless more or less similar cases - which means, purely and simply, cases which are never equal and thus altogether unequal." from Friedrich Nietzsche's Collected Letters, Vol. V, #479

And:

"The different languages, set side by side, show that what matters with words is never the truth, never an adequate expression; else there would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth, without consequences, would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for. One designates only the relations of things to man, and to express them one calls on the boldest metaphors. A nerve stimulus, first transposed into an image—first metaphor. The image, in turn, imitated by a sound—second metaphor. And each time there is a complete overleaping of one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one"

from IMO his very best writing: "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense"

Answer 2

Nietzsche meant that people's perception of a thing is more important -- in terms of determining people's response to that thing -- than any facts about it are. Most people don't have sense enough to look for facts that aren't self-evident, they just go by their feelings. This is exactly the effect that propagandists take advantage of; they choose their words to create an emotional response in their hearers, which neatly covers up any factual inconsistencies.

Answer 3

Well, it's just another example of Nietzsche being wrong. What things are is more important than what they are called. As an example, are you familiar with the Shakespeare quote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"? Lets take the the name rose and switch it with, oh, I don't know, let's say maggot. So what we know as a rose has, from the very beginning, been called a maggot. Would we be repulsed by the flower known as a maggot? Would we love the creepy, crawling bug known as a rose? We associate pleasant things with words because of what they are, not because of what they are called. And vice versa.

Answer 4

Nietzsche was talking about the idea that perception is far more imporant because it is perception that people act on. For example if someone "believes" in god they will act differently than if not. If someone percieves the world in a certian way they will act accordingly. So if the person acts on that it doesn't matter what the fact is doesn't matter only what is percieved.

Answer 5

A thing is a thing - but the name has cultural resonance that has more significance.

For example, look at the current "debate" over the use of the N-word. Clearly that label (ultimately any word is just a label) has a great deal more significance then identifying the colour of a person's skin or ethnic origin - the word has a whole universe of different meanings behind it.