“drunken reality, which likewise does not heed the unit man, but even seeks to destroy the individual and redeem him by a mystic feeling of Oneness.”

“In these Greek festivals a sentimental trait, as it were, breaks forth from nature, as if she must sigh over her dismemberment into individuals.”

The beginning and the innitiating Spirit of this work is fabulous and I’ll be returning to it often.
Towards the end it gets little repetitive but still very important.

Apollo vs. Dionysus

Other books contain the whole universe. However, not the whole, but only the universe of human perception. And the whole universe, even with the most developed imagination, a person will not accommodate, not to mention logic, which moves at best within the limits of generally accepted measures (ofer - subjectively taken)? So it is the perception in all its breadth as a unity of Apollonian and Dionysian (Dionisic) that is the main idea of this book (and from this point of view it can be safely put on a par with the research of the most prominent philosophers in the field of phenomenology of perception (Hegel, Kant, Merlot

Since the time of the deceased Greek tragedy and the triumph of scientific thinking (scientific creativity, it is also an Apollon beginning, which should not be confused with true creativity), it is encouraging if there are at least two lines in the spiritual development of the people - two stripes as on the pregnancy test - the highest manifestations of both Apollon and Dionysian principles And the pregnancy test here is more than a suitable analogue, because two stripes are not yet a child. Ideally, these stripes merge into a single whole, into one. That’s why Nietzsche himself calls this work in the text “to the knowledge of the Dionysic Apollon genius”, the embodiment of which is a combination of both principles - Apollon (in the Greek tragedy stage action) and Dionysian (music, choir in the Greek tragedy), a unity in which “word and image” reach “

Looking from Ancient Greece to modern Germany, Nietzsche should state that the situation leaves much to be desired, and all that the Greek tragedy could have revived is, in his opinion, its pathetic likeness - opera, where primacy belongs to recitatives, and music has become secondary, has taken on only an imitative role, and the effect is achieved

So let these studies not mislead the reader, because they are only illustrations of this masterpiece work, visual material to teach a different lesson of universal, no, all-Western significance. They are only columns supporting the dome of the universe, a superstructure expressed in the main idea. After all, the Apollon beginning, fighting the Dionysic and surviving it since the time of Socrates, has created a bias in its own direction, and this is not for the benefit of the very “genius”, which exists only in a harmonious combination of both principles. After all, not every logician is also an artist, so when reassessing the logical and underestimating true art, there was a bias towards Apollonic and to the detriment of Dionysian

But it is music that is a universal language, “highly generalised language”, a language that, unlike science, has a close relationship with the true essence of all things. It’s like “attitude... to the image and concept”. Music refers to the image, science to the concept. And the image is always broader than the concept, subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Ideally, the essence should be dual, and, as I said, logic is not always an artist, but dictates its conditions and discriminates on what he does not understand, detracts from the importance of art, the importance of metaphysical.

Wat vooral interessant is in dit eerste boek van Nietzsche is (althans voor mij) niet het 'filologisch' onderzoek naar hoe de Griekse tragedie is ontstaan en hoe het vervallen is. Maar eerder hoe het werk zich speelt in het volledig werk van Nietzsche.

Dit boek heeft al enorm veel hints naar concepten waar hij zich op latere leeftijd mee bezig houdt. De tragedie was voor de Grieken een manier om met het lijden van de wereld om te gaan, om het leven esthetisch te rechtvaardigen (de enige manier volgens Nietzsche waarop die gerechtvaardigd kan worden). De dood van de tragedie door het immens rationele ideaal dat Socrates als boegbeeld heeft gebruikt, brengt een immense leegte teweeg en is het begin van het verval voor de Griekse cultuur. Dit is doordat men geen aandacht meer geeft aan het Dionysische aspect van het leven, dat gekenmerkt staat door de dans, de roes, het voelen, etc. Het Apollinische kan niet gezond zijn zonder het Dionysische aspect. Dit doet enorm veel denken aan het idee van de dood van God en het nihilisme dat hierdoor ontstaat.

Nietzsche ziet wel hoop op een betere toekomst, een wedergeboorte (of een wederkeer?) van de tragedie. Opnieuw zal het leven esthetisch gerechtvaardigd kunnen worden. Opnieuw zal het lijden zijn nut hebben tot het maken van grootse mensen en zo samenlevingen. Bij het schrijven van dit boek, dacht Nietzsche aan Richard Wagner als de man die de cultuur zou laten heropleven. Na zijn breuk met Wagner, zag hij het misschien meer in zichzelf.

In Nietzsche's first book, he presents the difference between Dionysian and Apolline art (mostly music) as it arose in the ancient Greeks. Dionysiac music is more mythic and visceral, resulting in or inspiring art and plays that grapple with universal themes and the heart of reality. Apolline music is more individual and logical, resulting in more moralistic and rationalist works that stay on the surface of things. Nietzsche clearly favors the first which he claimed gave birth to proper tragedy. Tragedy needs both the Apolline and the Dionysiac elements, but the Apolline became more influential. As Greek culture (and philosophy) developed, its art declined. At the end of the book, Nietzsche discusses German music and tragedy and how it must follow the right route in order to be as great as it can be, i.e. as great as the best of the ancient Greek tradition. The book is dedicated to Richard Wagner, whom Nietzsche saw as emblematic of the ideal blend of the two sorts of music.

The book caused a lot of discussion, often heated, when it was first published. Nietzsche's distinctions were new and unwelcome in academia, as well as his idea that the Greeks struggled with a pessimistic worldview in their best tragedies. Nowadays, we look at everyone in the past as having flaws and challenges, so the controversy is less visceral. The book's arguments are loosely arranged and not very convincing, making it both difficult to read and to appreciate, let alone to agree with it. I found the text interesting but only in a academic sense.

Not recommended, though I will probably try some of Nietzsche's later works to see if they are better (or at least get them off my "shelf of the unread").

We Euripides fans need to rise up against the oppressive Nietzschean regime

should be read with an eye toward the critique of irrationalism developed by lukacs in the destruction of reason.

Good news and bad news. Bad news, this has been my least favorite Nietzsche by far, and I probably wouldn't have finished it without the class. Lots of it feels repetitive or unclear, and not unclear in a cool, poetic Nietzschean way, unclear in a "bad argumentation" way. Good news, however. This was his first book and a few years after he wrote it, he called it "badly written, ponderous, embarrassing, image-mad and image-confused, sentimental, in places saccharine to the point of effeminacy, uneven in tempo, without the will to logical cleanliness, very convinced and therefore disdainful of proof". So Nietzsche and I agree, making this opinion acceptable.

The general concept is actually pretty cool, there are 2 artistic "drives" the Greeks had, the Apollonian (order, individuation, permanence, like poetry and sculpture) and the Dionysian (chaos, loss of self, orgiastic, irrational, like music) and that the Greek tragedy is this amazing art form because it combines the two drives, and allows us to accept/understand the suffering in life. Despite the general concept being great, again, the argumentation and the details are just unclear. So, the first Nietzsche flop, sadly.

One more thing. Nietzsche values music more than any other art form, including writing, and it makes me sad that he tried to write music and was pretty bad at it. Whenever he praises music, it's like wow this is sad, he tried to do this and couldn't.

(2.5)

Quotes

"Wisdom, the myth seems to whisper to us, and Dionysiac wisdom in particular, is an unnatural abomination: whoever plunges nature into the abyss of destruction by what he knows must in turn experience the dissolution of nature in his own person."

"We talk so abstractly about poetry because we are usually all bad poets. "

"This close relation that music has to the true nature of all things can also explain the fact that, when music suitable to any scene, action, event, or environment is played, it seems to disclose to us its most secret meaning, and appears to be the most accurate and distinct commentary on it."

"Perhaps there is a kingdom of wisdom from which the logician is banished? "

”Tragedy sits in the midst of this superabundance of life, suffering, and delight, in sublime ecstasy, listening to a distant, melancholy singing which tells of the Mothers of Being, whose names are delusion, will, woe.”

It is impossible to forget Nietzsche’s philosophy laid out in the Birth of Tragedy. Reading this book there is a great possibility you will go deep down the rabbit hole of Greek tragedy and it is a hell of a place to dwell in.
The Birth of Tragedy was written by young Nietzsche, being only 27 years old. He later critiqued his passionate, idealistic, poet-philosopher writing style but not the core ideas he outlined that massively impacted modern thought. Nietzsche here is verbose but vivid, daring, enthusiastic, in highest exaltation of his Dionysian self, making often abstract, vague arguments in a completely non-linear fashion which makes linear, coherent breaking down of text a demanding task. I will attempt to give my reflection on what would I consider the big overlaying themes.

Helenism and pessimism
Nietzsche makes an argument, similar to Aristotle's in Poetics, that the tragic theatre in Ancient Greece was the highest art form. Here he is specific about the time period - he thinks the early period of Greek art and philosophy is the pinnacle of Greek thought and civilization. As laid out in his also brilliant book Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks the decline of Greek culture, as well as the whole Western civilization, started with Socrates who believed that truth can be reached through reason and dialectic, not through art, and caused the shift from mythos to logos. Inherent optimism is the aftermath of Socratic philosophy, reflected also in Christian morality, the tradition of Western rationalism and science where man thinks he can know everything and reign all (the inheritance of Genesis where God said to the man to rule all life) through reason, with faith in its complete omnipotence. Nietzsche thinks that we long waited for the first pessimist philosopher, his great influence, Schopenhauer, who was an original anti-rationalist, one who believed in the primacy of irrational Will. As Schopenhauer, Ancient Greeks were also pessimists, because they acknowledged the horrible and enigmatic character of existence - the pain, suffering and death that are inexplicable. The human mind is finite and the mystery that pervades life through tragedy goes beyond reason and consciousness. Through the invention of tragedy, Greek could go beyond pessimism to the tragic affirmation of life - they were saying yes to life more fully and passionately and descended into the mystery of life more profoundly than anyone.
They could say yes to life because the tragedy is formed by the interplay of two deities, of the two opposite ruling principles of life that Nietzsche named after two Greek gods, making now widely used terms of Apollonian and Dionysian.

The Apollonian
Apollon is the god of Reason and appearance, the Shining one that gives the enlightenment of logic and thrives in order, rules and perfect form whether it is morality, aesthetics, art, or beauty. Apollo is the bearer of the light of consciousness, self-knowledge and memory as his ruling principle is “Know thyself”. He gives the principle of individuation - the formation of finite identity through injection of limitation and measure, faith in the shining of one's own individuality and the unity of the Self. Apollinian art has extraordinary clarity, giving hard edges to what it depicts - painting, sculptures, epics, poetry - exemplifying the principium individuationis which Schopenhauer had located as the major error that we suffer from epistemologically that we perceive and conceive of the world in terms of separate objects, including separate persons. Apollo gives the sublime truth of logic and heals through it (medicine) and his truth shields us from chaos and suffering.

The Dionysian
Dionysus is the twice-born, the god of duality, the enigma and paradox, the god of many forms and inexpressible depth, a raving god whose presence makes man mad and incites him to savagery and lust for blood. He gives a compulsion to frenzy - excessive energy in intoxication and ecstasy. He is deeply rooted in nature, instinctual and animalistic and frees man from his humanity making him descend into passion, sexuality, cruelty and darkness. By bringing destruction, chaos and ugliness he brings a new creation as a new form cannot arise without the obliteration of the old. Opposite to Apollonian memory and self-knowledge, Dionysus is the god of forgetting - forgetting our strengths, our failures and struggles in order to achieve greatness, and forgetting oneself to reach a new state of being. Dionysus brings the annihilation of the principle of individuation as in forgetting one is free to merge into the collective where the boundaries of subjectivity exist no more. In Dionysian celebrations, masquerades and festivals one is transgressing the limits of own individuality in the obliteration of the self-identity where one can become anything he desires, anything at all. Dionysus heals through a creative transfiguration in the experience of both suffering and ecstasy, and in the return to the primordial unity, there is a reconciliation of humanity and nature. Dionysian gives us immediate access to nominal reality (the thing in itself) but bypasses the representing (Apollonian), and gives us feeling (pathos) for what lies beyond our boundary conditions bringing the wisdom of lived experience, not logic, as truth. In the Twilight of Idols, Nietzsche named himself "the last disciple of the philosopher Dionysus."

“But how suddenly the wilderness of our tired culture, which we have just painted in such gloomy colours, can be transformed, when it is touched by Dionysiac magic! A storm seizes everything that is worn out, rotten, broken, and withered, wraps it in a whirling cloud of red dust and carries it like an eagle into the sky. Our eyes gaze in confusion after what has disappeared, for what they see is like something that has emerged from a pit into golden light, so full and green, so luxuriantly alive, so immeasurable and filled with longing. ”

The long-lasting repression of Dionysian in the West as part of our nature can make us idolize and glorify Dionysus, this alluring, but highly dangerous god. As much as it is fun to critique rationality, the Apollonian light of reason is the part that makes us capable of even reflecting on Dionysian - and the borders of our individuation shield us not to experience psychotic disintegration, but mystical unity. As much as Nietzsche critiqued Socrates - he did it by apparatus of classical intellectual - examination and judgment.

Greek Tragedy
“The metaphysical solace which, I wish to suggest, we derive from every true tragedy, the solace that in the ground of things, and despite all changing appearances, life is indestructibly mighty and pleasurable, this solace appears with palpable clarity in the chorus of satyrs, a chorus of natural beings whose life goes on ineradicably behind and beyond all civilization, as it were, and who remain eternally the same despite all the changes of generations and in the history of nations.“

Giving examples, Nietzsche makes an argument that Apollonian without the Dionysian is stale and restraining and Dionysian without the Apollonian is menacing and chaotic. The Greek Tragedy is the most perfect form because it represents the holy marriage of Apollonian and Dionysian, art that merges two sides, the mystical unity of life. In Ancient form Greek tragedy contained acting on stage as well as music and dance, and what Nietzsche finds vital for the catharsis of the audience - chorus. His thesis is that in the peaks of the tragedy the chorus dominates so that the audience sees on stage its own reflection, raised to overpowering heights of suffering and transfiguration. Nietzsche admired Aeschylus and Sophocles (and offers a great analysis of the characters in their plays, especially Oedipus as well as Prometheus), whereas with Euripides he thinks that the decline of Greek tragedy began. Euripides' plays acted out in theater had no longer dance, music, or choir within them, just pure forms of images, making his tragedies Apollonian, condensed philosophical thought with the accent on a psychological drama of individual, which represents the triumph of Socratic rationalism and asceticism. Euripides manifested an interest in an individual, in psychology, and worst of all, in the beneficial effects of rationality, or as Nietzsche tends to call it, ‘dialectic’, making him the poet of aesthetic Socratism (for something to be beautiful it must be reasonable).

Existential implication
Greek Tragedy gave Greeks “great health” as they not only could endure but worship as divine the contrast embedded in the nature of reality, pain and suffering as part of the primordial essence of being, of all forms of life and creation. Dionysian gives a justification of pain and tragedy on both a personal level as well on a cosmic level - suffering is an intrinsic part of all things and to remove it would be to remove life itself. An important part of Nietzsche's philosophy is the complete affirmation of life in the totality of being - he criticized the Christian morality for acknowledging solely moral aspects of life - and therefore rejecting the inherent immorality of existence, which is almost the same as hatred for life. Nietzschean tragic affirmation of life is saying yes to life even in its strangest, hardest, most nefarious problems - having a Will to live, truly Dionysian quality - to join together peak and abyss, horrors of darkness and heights of bliss. The great health in not only accepting the horrible, evil, problematic aspects of existence as necessary but affirming them as a desirable part of the whole. To know the good as well as the bad is to know the wholeness of life and only by knowing the wholeness can one say a complete YES to life. To experience the most painful thoughts and the most extreme form of nihilism, and yet be able to emerge from such depths and affirm life in its totality is undoubtedly the highest state of being.

Theory of Art
”Function of art: to give us a hint of a truth, a truth that the world was chaotic and meaningless but, equally, art had to shield us from this dark, dreadful reality.”

Nietzsche believed that when artists transfigure the world aesthetically it produces profound existential satisfaction - the world and suffering are justified by art and creativity, what he called the ”only satisfactory theodicy”. Art gives us both healing and redemption through illusion, and saves us from the horrors of existence, giving the affirmation, the blessing, the deification of existence itself. Therefore, art is “the highest task and the proper metaphysical activity of this life”.
In a large sense, Nietzsche is a philosopher of self-realization, and the question he posed in the subtitle of Ecce Homo; “How one becomes who he is?” is central to his philosophy. How does a human become great? The Apollonian aspect of art, from the god of plastic energies, makes us dream beautiful illusions and create them in reality. The Dionysian aspect, makes us embody art in ourselves. Nietzsche believed that in the matrimony of Apollonian and Dionysian we are both the artists and the art form. Nietzsche believes that the Dionysian incites us to make ourselves into the work of art, an embodiment of art itself - one of the most beautiful thoughts that philosophy ever produced.

“Man is no longer an artist [as he had been in creating the gods], he has become a work of art: the artistic power of the whole of nature reveals itself to the supreme gratification of the primal Oneness amidst the paroxysms of intoxication.“

The Nietzschean, but also universal truth is we need both Apollonian and Dionysian, self-knowledge and self-forgetfulness, order and chaos, construction and destruction, pessimism and tragic affirmation - to be in unity of the opposite and to love life in the fullness of human experience.
Read Birth of Tragedy to gain more understanding of Greek tragedy on the journey of mythical inner exploration.

”Yes, my friends, believe as I do in Dionysiac life and in the rebirth of tragedy. The time of Socratic man is past. Put on wreaths of ivy, take up the thyrsus and do not be surprised if tigers and panthers lie down, purring and curling round your legs. Now you must only dare to be tragic human beings, for you will be released and redeemed. You will accompany the festive procession of Dionysos from India to Greece! Put on your armour for a hard fight, but believe in the miracles of your god!”

Nietzsche is really speaking about the death of tragedy not its birth. He really doesn't like humanism in any of its variations. He says that it's our experiences which give us our understanding (a very Husserlian Phenomenological thing to say). The instinct, emotion, passion, the mysticism within us, and our intuitions are what really empower us (he says) not our reason. Music and dance lets the real person who lies within come to full actualization. Knowledge of the real world is not truth and it is the disclosure (as in the Homeric myths) that gives us our understanding (according to him).

The metaphor he uses to describe the development of tragedy throughout history could just as easily be applied to within a person in themselves and almost for sure could be used by Freudian psychology and its various off shoots to explain the conscious verse unconscious selves within us and for both Freud and Nietzsche reaching into the unconscious will give us our true selves. In the end, he thinks the individual is master of his own domain and the primal instinct within us has been extinguished since the time of the Socratics, and we are all the worst for it.

The Republican's who embrace a neanderthal like Donald Trump would do well to read Nietzsche. They would understand how to frame their arguments better than they usually do. There is a part in this book where he'll speak about the special character of the Germans. Patriotism always means the group you belong to is special because you are in that group. By definition, you have to make some other group less special. Republicans under Donald Trump definitely are trying to do that. But, there is more than just the patriotism that would appeal to Republicans in this book. He also wants to feel his way to the right answer so that facts can be replaced with 'alternative facts' (whatever those are?) as long as you can feel the answer then it is better than knowing through reason.

Reason is definitely not a virtue for Nietzsche or any Republican who is a climate change denier Also, Republicans mock Freud, but seem to love to blame the victim too. Everything in their world view is the fault of the individual. (They loved thinking, refrigerator moms caused autism. They love blaming the mother when they can. Little realizing sometimes people are born that way and there is no one to blame except the universe. They believe that you are the master of your own fate. The captain of your own ship. Time and chance play no role in their world view).

This book is slightly different then the other ones of his that I've read recently. He doesn't show contempt for the reader, he wants to be taken seriously, and he doesn't hate women overtly (yes, he does mention 'feminine traits' as being bad, after all, 'virtus' originally meant 'manly excellence', so that which is worthy of being imitated was according to the man not from the woman, but overall that kind of thinking is within the time frame he was writing in. I'd be even able to site modern people who say stupid things like that such as a previous governor (Schwarzenegger) of California who said "don't be a sissy man" and that was within the bounds of most Republicans and they even like that kind of talk, but that's not what I think nor believe).

Nietzsche's fluency with Greek Gods and Titans was overwhelmingly elegant. He also seemed to be even more pessimistic than Schopenhauer within this book. I liked it when he quotes someone as to the one thing we should all know is "that we would have been better not to be born".

If you do read this one, I would suggest reading "Genealogy of Morals" first even though it was written latter. Nietzsche hasn't yet flushed out many of his thoughts within this book (Birth of Tragedy) and "Genealogy of Morals" will fill in those obvious gaps making this book easy to understand.

‘Only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.’


In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche’s first book, he describes what he believes are the two central forces in art and how they merged to form Greek tragedy. The two forces are the Dionysian and the Apolline. The Dionysian is wild, formless and is associated with music, the will and breaking through cultural norms. The Apolline deals with sculpture, dreams, poetry, restraint and the individual.

The ancient Greeks needed Apolline myths, which were born from dreams. They took form as the Olympian pantheon and served as a beautiful veil to cover the suffering and pain of life. The Greeks gained strength from these Olympian Gods and came to see them as strong and beautiful reflections of themselves. Nietzsche says, ‘the gods provide a justification for the life of man by living it themselves.’

The Dionysian drive however, which was part of religious rites, was very different. In the festivals man came face to face with nature and the individual was consumed. The festivals were joyous, musical, sexual and intoxicating. They gave a true glimpse into the nature of life, with its undercurrent of constant striving, willing and breaking through of cultural norms.

Nietzsche describes how the Apolline and Dionysian forces merged in Attic tragedy, after at first being at odds. He believed the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles were both Apolline and Dionysian. With the musical chorus (representing the will) in tragic drama, one had insight into the true nature of the world. Despite the death of the tragic hero, the audience was consoled because of the Apollonian vision before them and the fact that the underlying will in all life lives on.

This ideal artistic state was not to last however. Along came the philosopher Socrates who was purely intellectual and hoped to get to the truth about the natural order of the world using reason and discarding instinctual feeling. He believed ‘virtue is knowledge,’ and the scientific approach killed tragedy and severed man from the healthy Dionysian state, and Apolline art died there with it.

This was seen by Nietzsche to be disastrous, because the problem with science is that it can’t adequately explain the world and give it meaning, so this can herald in an age of nihilism. At this point art is then needed again to give the world meaning.

Nietzsche at the time of writing BOT believed his contemporary Richard Wager was going to herald in the contemporary form of Greek Tragedy in their native Germany. He fell out with Wagner though, shortly after writing this book and changed many of his former views.

In conclusion, this is a good book if you want to know more about art, Greek culture, the value of myth and the potential problems of scientific and rational inquiry. I’d suggest though that the reader first have some knowledge of the Greek classics before they attempt to read this book.

Started this when I was in high school but never got to finish it. I recommend a solid dose of Greek plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, also some Greek myth (Stephen Fry's is a good summary), and some Wagner opera perhaps, before attempting it. Everyone sort of know what it is about (Apollinian vs Dionysian) but it turns out to be way more than that. Nietzsche turns out to be a wise and original cultural critic, way more interesting to read than his self-confessed disciples. Some of the key ideas that I didn't know about this book:

1. Socrates brought a change in Greek drama, away from the cthonic/Dionysian dramas of Aeschylus to the rationality and predictability of Euripides.
2. Music is the highest form of art, because it is not a copy of anything from this world. Nietzsche echoes Schopenhauer here. Therefore, imitative music (word/tone-painting) and word-centric music is inferior to music which focuses on music itself (absolute/symphonic music). This is why Nietzsche thought that much of opera (and recitative) is bad music. He considers music that embraces chaos and not dependent on the words being literally understood as superior. E.g. he thought Wagner's operas as amazing because although it is based on words, the music and the content are so much beyond that.
3. The dominance of science is in inverse relation to myth and music. Nietzsche considers science and its worldview as Apollinian in character, and the latter as Dionysian. The Apollinian is good at understanding and bringing things to consciousness, but would balk at the irrational. Much of modern science is Apollinian, although according to Nietzsche, Kant and Schopenhauer have bravely dispelled this notion by their conceptualization of the seen world as maya and the thing in itself as in the noumenon. Furthermore, science will chase this illusion of truth like a person inside a hall of mirror, eventually coming across its own tail and having to admit its own fallibility and seeking refuge in the realm of art. Nietzsche went on to argue that the modern man, by ridding of all the myth, are acting like a starved savage in losing all their meaning. They need the Dionysian. Thus, Nietzsche proved to take a nuanced position on whether science will be able to explain everything.

All in all, a deep book, much more than what people often purport it to contain.

Dit is niet een boek om Nietzsche mee te beginnen. Hij is nog heel erg op zoek naar zijn eigen taal hier, een filosoof in wording. Hij leent hij bepaalde concepten van Schopenhauer en Kant waar hij in latere werken anders over spreekt. Ook heeft hij hier een bepaalde hoop en waardering voor het 'Duitse wezen' en daarmee de Duitse cultuur, Duitse kunst in het bijzonder, wat later ook zal omslaan tot 'overal waar de Duitse cultuur komt, verderft het'. Dit hangt samen met een draai in zijn houding tegenover Wagner, maar ook bijvoorbeeld Luther en zijn Reformatie.

Al met al is het interessant om te lezen als je al bekend bent met de man, je kunt de kiemen van later doorontwikkelde concepten terugzien, zoals de eeuwige wederkeer, de übermensch, amor fati, of de slavenmoraal.

Hoogtepunt van het boek voor mij is wanneer hij zich tegen Euripides en Socrates keert, en waarin hij aanstipt hoe het tot deugd maken van het weten hen vijandig maakt tegenover alles waar de kunst voor Nietzsche voor staat.

Veel referenties naar Griekse tragedieschrijvers gingen mij over het hoofd, ook dat is een minpuntje aan dit boek. Het is niet dat je er niets uit kán halen zonder deze voorkennis, maar het voelt alsof er langs je heengepraat wordt soms. Zulke voorkennis zou de ervaring van dit boek rijker maken vermoed ik.