"... kendi 'gerçeklik'imizi bir an için bir kenara bırakırsak, kendi görüngül varoluşumuzu, genel olarak dünyanın varoluşu gibi, ilk-bir'in her an üretilen bir tasavvuru olarak kavrarız; işte bundan dolayı düşü, görünüşün görünüşü olarak, böylelikle de, görünüşe duyulan ilk-özlemin daha üst bir doyumlanışı olarak kabul etmemiz gerekir. İşte bu aynı nedenle, doğanın en içteki çekirdeği, yine yalnızca 'görünüşün görünüşü' olan naif sanatçıdan ve naif sanat yapıtından o tanımlanamaz hazzı duyar."

It's Nietzsche. What do you want? Should I read the most influential writer of our aeon? Uh... maybe yes?

Friedrich Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy

In Helen Morales' introduction to Tim Whitmarsh's fine new translation of Leucippe and Clitophon ,

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

written by the Alexandrian Greek Achilles Tatius in the 2nd century CE, she mentions that Nietzsche condemned the ancient Greek novels as a final sign of the degeneration of Greek literary art. I had forgotten all about that, so I thumbed through Die Geburt der Tragödie to find what he said in context and was pulled into the book again by his wonderful prose style and my curiosity about what else I may have forgotten in the intervening time. Of course, the thumbing turned into a re-read...

Die Geburt der Tragödie was Friedrich Nietzsche's (1844-1900) first book, though it transformed through a number of stages before it was published under this name first in 1872. It was modified twice more, and I read it in its final form of 1886. This final version had a new preface entitled Versuch einer Selbstkritik (Attempt at a Self-Criticism), wherein Nietzsche distanced himself from the text by explaining how his young, romantic self, under the excitement and pressure of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71, had undertaken a task beyond his inexperienced reach. He calls the book poorly written, clumsy, embarrassing, overly enthusiastic and insufficiently argued, etc. He even calls it "here and there sweetened to the point of femininity"! (*) In this preface Nietzsche also takes the opportunity to eloquently and forcefully restate his view that morality, particularly Christian morality, is anti-life, that Christian teleology is life-hating.

In any case, Nietzsche had begun a very promising academic career at the University of Basel in Classical Philology, but this book killed it at once. A few responses by academics were published which dismantled the book from the point of view of academic considerations: he didn't take into account relevant literature and therefore misrepresented what was known (this is quite relevant, for he attacked the science of philology itself), he confused dates and pushed certain poets' works centuries before their time in order to make points, etc. The next semester, students avoided his lectures. He was finished. But in this book Nietzsche first formulated in a tentative form some of the ideas which later became central to his thought, a body of thought which hardly had any place in academia, anyway.(**)

So what is the book about? Way too much, actually. He begins by recalling the well known Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy: very roughly speaking, reason and measure versus irrationality and intoxication/ecstasy (a favorite topic of Hermann Hesse and so many other romantic/post-romantic German authors). Like the ancient Greeks, he also attributed dreams, viewed as prophesies and revelations, to the Apollonian side. But it is the Dionysian side which breaks down all barriers between individuals and between man and nature, which, unlike the Apollonian side - only permitting the awe-full admiration of the gods in dreams - actually permits one to feel like a god.

In quick succession Nietzsche tells us that dreams are a higher state of existence than "real life", that Homer was the first Apollonian artist and Archilochus (because lyrical poet = lyricist = musician = Dionysian) the first Dionysian artist, that the existence of the lyrical poet is a big problem for the philosophy of art (which he "solves"), etc., etc.

Nietzsche arrives at the topic of the origin of the Greek tragedy, but instead of examining the surviving primary sources he argues against Schlegel, Schiller and other very secondary sources. Distinguishing between the Apollonian rhapsody and the Dionysian dithyramb, Nietzsche repeats Aristotle's assertion that Greek tragedy originated in the dithyramb, and does so without mentioning Aristotle. He goes on to assert that the original Greek tragedies united both the Apollonian and Dionysian within themselves. In his own words:

Nach dieser Erkenntnis haben wir die griechische Tragödie als den dionysischen Chor zu verstehen, der sich immer von neuem wieder in einer apollinischen Bilderwelt entladet.

(According to this knowledge, we have to understand Greek tragedy as the Dionysian choir, which ever again anew discharges itself in an Apollonian world of images.)

He goes on to "explain" why the dialogue in the plays is Apollonian and why all the tragic heroes were masks of Dionysus. This original, pure tragedy soon degenerated into Attic comedy, which Nietzsche discusses next.

Nietzsche makes a notable assertion, which I oversimplify as follows: As part of this degeneration, the pair Euripides/Socrates introduced reason, as opposed to instinct, into the Greek theater. This turning towards reason and against the old, unspoken connection to the Dionysian roots of Greek culture initiated and accelerated the decay of that culture. He sketches how the birth of philosophy in Athens destroyed the original, more authentic and more valid Greek culture.(***) And, certainly, when one considers how Plato treated all of the arts in his Republic, Nietzsche is not merely spinning fables here.

He continues, asserting that all of Western culture is overshadowed by the nefarious, optimistic, knowledge-seeking, Apollonian degenerate Socrates and his followers. Science is their love child and is only enabling greed and materialism and abstraction while destroying art and alienating mankind from its roots. He calls for a revolution away from the Apollonian back to the Dionysian, and precisely this call he develops and intensifies in his later work. We know in hindsight that some very nasty people took up this cry for instinct, roots and the transcendence of self and went to some very bad places with it. I deny that this is in any way Nietzsche's responsibility or that such thinking must lead necessarily to such places. On the contrary, such thinking can lead, for example, to Zen Buddhism.

This book does not try to present a thesis and make a reasoned argument in support of it, complete with evidence of all kinds. No, it is poetic and somewhat confused speculation and enthusiasm; it is a piece of romantic literature, not philosophy or philology, though it makes one suggestive and interesting point, as mentioned earlier. It is a beautifully expressed, extended essay in which the young Nietzsche shows us some of the things he is enthused about. With that in mind, one can enjoy his youthful, undisciplined enthusiasm and fondly recall from one's earlier years a similar state of being. (Or, if one is young enough to be in that state of being, one can see a kindred spirit - always a pleasant experience.)

Before closing, I absolutely have to express my admiration for Nietzsche's prose - he is the greatest prose stylist among the many German philosophers I have read. He, even more than that great prose stylist Plato, can sweep the reader along, can woo him into a state of willing acceptance, nay, enthusiasm for his views. It is a pleasure to read his writings, even when, in the back of one's mind, one is often thinking "I don't find this to be valid at all."

(*) A cutting criticism from a man who thought masculinity was the measure of correct thought and emotion. This criticism was leveled at his younger self!

(**) I don't understand that remark as being negative either for Nietzsche or for academia.

(***) This prefigures the mature Nietzsche's rejection of reason, as opposed to instinct and will.

Note: If you care to know what star rating I give this book, please see my blog at

http://leopard.booklikes.com/blog

He's not the Nietzsche i know.. this is not the philosopher i love.
he wrote this when he was a young man (21 yo i think) and he was completely different from the great man who once said: I teach you the Superhuman


Around a hero, everything becomes tragedy, i hate heroes and Nietzsche was a hero when he wrote this book and this is why i didn't like this
Around a demi-god, everything becomes a satyr , a demi-god may be the one who killed the god in zarathoustra story, and Nietzsche killed the god when he was 40 years old

around God, everything becomes - so what? maybe universe?
the whole philosophy of this man is in this forgotten sentence from Beyond Good and Evil

what is written in this book is the beginning of this great journey,
the journey began in music in old epic tragedies and ends at the creation of superhumans

I love you Nietzsche, you will be always in my path...

This took me almost a year (9.5 months) to finish! I read 3- 5 pages every few days because it's hard to understand otherwise. The Birth of Tragedy is a very dense piece of literature. Nietzsche pretty much talks about how Greek tragic art was controlled by two forces - the rational, light of Apollo versus the drunken insanity of Dionysus. I liked the concept that the world is meaningless and so we create art and music to give it a meaning.
Probably my favorite part was Nietzsche's little anecdote about Silenus and Midas and how the best thing for humans is to never have been born, second best to die soon. Not to be, to be nothing.
I suspect I only partially understood but found it a fascinating read. Overall, interesting stuff but hard to grasp and with many boring parts.
Rating: 3.5

Friedrich Nietzsche's "The Birth of Tragedy" is a captivating and intellectually provocative exploration of the origins and essence of Greek tragedy. With his characteristic philosophical brilliance and poetic flair, Nietzsche delves into the depths of human existence, unveiling the profound insights hidden within ancient Greek culture and art.

From the very first page, Nietzsche's writing captivates the reader's imagination. His prose flows like a river, carrying us along a winding journey through the annals of history and the recesses of the human psyche. With a blend of vivid imagery, lyrical language, and intellectual depth, Nietzsche paints a vibrant tapestry that transports readers to the ancient world of the Greeks, where tragedy reigned supreme.

One of the most striking aspects of this book is Nietzsche's audacity in challenging the prevailing philosophical and artistic conventions of his time. He boldly asserts that the ancient Greeks possessed a keen understanding of the dual nature of existence: the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Drawing upon Greek mythology, Nietzsche argues that Apollo represents the world of form, order, and individuality, while Dionysus embodies the realm of chaos, ecstasy, and collective unity. This dichotomy forms the foundation of tragedy, where the two forces intertwine and give birth to sublime artistic creations.

Throughout the book, Nietzsche's intellectual brilliance shines as he dissects the nature of tragedy and its significance in human life. He delves into the psychology of the tragic hero, exploring themes of suffering, redemption, and the eternal recurrence of tragic patterns. Nietzsche's profound insights challenge readers to question their own existence, prompting a deeper reflection on the human condition and the complexities of our desires, fears, and aspirations.

It serves as a scathing critique of modernity and its impact on art and culture. Nietzsche laments the loss of the Dionysian spirit in contemporary society, where rationality, industrialization, and mass culture have stifled the creative and instinctual forces that once flourished. His passionate plea for the resurgence of the Dionysian within the artistic realm echoes with a sense of urgency, urging readers to embrace the irrational, the sublime, and the primordial in order to regain a deeper connection to life itself.

While Nietzsche's ideas are undoubtedly complex and challenging, his poetic and evocative language makes the book accessible and engaging. His mastery of metaphor and analogy brings abstract concepts to life, enabling readers to grasp the depth of his philosophical arguments. Nietzsche's writing style is both profound and beautiful, captivating the reader's imagination and inviting them into a world of intellectual exploration.

In conclusion, "The Birth of Tragedy" is a profound and thought-provoking work that continues to resonate with readers to this day. Friedrich Nietzsche's blend of philosophy, aesthetics, and poetic language creates a mesmerizing reading experience. This book challenges conventional wisdom, inspires introspection, and encourages a reevaluation of our relationship with art, culture, and the fundamental aspects of human existence. Nietzsche's insights continue to stimulate discourse and inspire individuals to embrace the depths of their own humanity.

A difficult book to scrutinise unless you're versed in German thought (Kant, Schopenhauer, Schiller, Goethe, etc) and Greek myths, philosophy, and tragedy (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides). Nietzsche pits strict, clear-cut Apollonian individuation (man as artist) against the unifying primal forces of Dionysius (man as work of art, as god, as nature), before arguing that the Tragedy marries the two. The last line of the book says: 'But now follow me to the tragedy and let us perform a sacrifice in the temple of both deities!'

Presuming myself not completely unversed yet decently motivated by a desire to understand the Apollo-Dionysius dichotomy in dance, I attempted an in-depth reading. I gained some insight alongside a batch of frustration. Nietzsche's word is dense and his meaning opaque to a first reading, so I would recommend a slightly looser approach to any non-philosopher: read for your level of understanding; do not attempt to pierce the armour of thought where a few minutes contemplation do not scratch the surface. Research the references that catch your attention; read the references that you deem worthy of your time. Then try Nietzsche again.

Recipe for "The Birth of Tragedy":

1. Add one part speculative psychological inquiry into the deepest recesses of Hellenic consciousness.
2. Stir in some rousing and thought-provoking anti-Socratic and anti-Euripidean invective.
3. Season with a pinch of ecstatically Dionysiac rhetoric.
4. If necessary, add more speculative psychological inquiry to taste.
5. Beat vigorously until mixture produces an unqualified dithyrambic adoration of Richard Wagner.
6. Let stand until properly matured.

Serves 1.

I found about three-quarters of this book utterly incomprehensible. Therefore, I am indebted to Douglas Smith who provides an excellent foreword, and to those Good Readers who, with intrepid mental exertion, have managed to extract from this text some kind of coherent summary. As others have noted - and in a far more lucid way than I can attempt here - the central argument/theme in Nietzsche’s ‘The Birth of Tragedy’ is that all manifestations of art, be it poetry, tragedy, epic, opera, music, painting or sculpture, all originate from two opposing personifications: the Apollonian and the Dionysian.

This concept is reiterated throughout the book, and later, expanded to include another perspective; which is that a Socratic element has permeated the domain of art with its presuppositions of rationalism, and consequently, tainted it by directing its essence away from a more “pure” Dionysian form to something more contrived and superficial. Nietzsche levies particular disparagement on the plays of Euripides with this claim.

What I consider to be problematic with this book, are the frequent digressions that branch off from the more intelligible aspects. They read like the disjointed ramblings of a (admittedly very eloquent and voluble), madman. Parts of the book are so abstract and vague, it is incredibly hard to follow; so much to the extent that I am even suspicious of those who awarded this book 5-stars, as I struggle to fathom how someone could honestly say that they fully comprehend every paragraph. But, I am prepared to concede it could very well be a lack of understanding on my part.

If I had approached this book without any expectations of erudition, then I could enjoy it purely in terms of its literary criticism, psychoanalytic conjecture, or as merely a stream of consciousness. However, Nietzsche did pique my interest when critiquing the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and where he delineated Schopenhauer’s elusive concept of Will. Moreover, Nietzsche’s allegorical interpretation of Apollonian/Dionysian attributes that he ascribes to the chorus and protagonist of Athenian Tragedy, was undoubtedly compelling; although his repeated praise for Aristophanes was quite bizarre.

I am not academically equipped to present a truly measured rebuke of Nietzsche’s rhetoric here, but I can echo what others have quite rightly pointed out: chiefly, that there appears to be a clear contradiction to his argument in lionising the superiority of the Dionysian. Essentially, he uses the very oratorical methods of persuasion (including the logic of the Socratic dialectic), dressed up in all the Apollonian beauty of language - all of which would qualify by his own standards as classical rationalism - to make the case that the very antithesis of this order; the immutable, all-encompassing, unbridled Dionysian force/will of chaos, ecstasy, euphoria, loss of identity, is in every sense superior.

The bitter irony is that Nietzsche’s life was itself a consummate tragedy. He seemingly embraced the Dionysian outlook a little too fervently to guide his own actions; and consequently, it was his nihilistic, wanton, care-free lasciviousness that lead to him contracting venereal disease, and ultimately to his madness.

As philosophy, it perhaps lacks argument. As history, it’s insightful if reliant on abstract binaries. As myth, it’s jolly good fun.

I struggle for words at the conclusion of this work. Though Nietzsche's first work, I believe it to be his best. He accurately pinpoints several major failures in our contemporary aesthetical landscape. His structuring of man around the Dionysiac counterposed to Apolline influences was, I believe, phenomenally done. His writing imparts almost a sense of nostalgia for a time when one could freely romp around wheat fields in what Nietzsche would describe as "orgiastic bliss." Nevertheless, he provides a compelling argument for a return to a more primal revelery of art as delivered through tragedy. The Greeks were right about many things and art was one of them.

Tragedya, ilk örnekleri Antik Yunan'da görülen bir oyun türü olarak biliniyor edebi türler içerisinde. Türkçede trajedi ve ağlatı anlamını taşıyan tragedya, izleyicisinde korku ve acıma duygularını uyandırarak, onlardan anlatılan olaylar üzerine ders çıkarması amacı güdülmüştür. Bunun birlikte izleyici duygusal ve ruhen bir arınma yaşayacak, temizlenecektir. Konularını tarihten, mitostan alan bu oyun türü, oyun içerisindeki bir kahramanın iyi durumdan kötü duruma geçiş yapabileceğini en üst düzey bir üslupla dile getirir; elbette koro eşliğinde. Tragedyalar içerisinde erdem ve ahlak olmazsa olmazdır. En önemli tragedya sanatçıları olarak; Euripides, Sophokles, Aiskhylos örnek verilebilir.
Genel anlamda bu şekilde bilinen tragedyaya bir de Nietzsche'nin gözünden bakalım şimdi de. Nieztsche, tragedyayı bir insan haline getiriyor adeta. Ona bazı nitelikler katıyor, kendi tragedyasını yaratıyormuşçasına. O yarattığı insanın özelliklerini alabilmek için Antik Yunan'ın gizemlerinin ve güzelliklerinin kapılarını aralıyor, tarihte bir gezinti yapar gibi hareket ediyor. İki büyük Yunan tanrısını; Apollon ve Dionysos'u seçiyor kendisine. Apollon, mitolojide güneşin, müziğin, sanatın, ateşin, sanatların tanrısı olarak biliniyor. Bunlarla birlikte kahin özelliği taşıdığı da bilinmekte. Dionysos ise, şarap tanrısı olarak geçiyor mitolojide. Temsil ettiği durum somut anlamdaki sarhoş edicilikten çok, kişinin ruhani anlamda kendinden geçmesi, iç dünyasının açığa çıkması, bireyselciliğidir.
Nietzsche, birbirine karşıt olan Apollon ve Dionysos tanrıları çerçevesinde, kendi yorumunu, bakışını ve felsefesini katarak tragedyaya farklı bir bakış açısı kazandırdı. Onun gözünde Apollon, mantığı ve aklı temsil etmekteydi. Somut şeyleri, görünenleri, görselliği sunuyordu. Ölçü ve uyum hakimdi fazlasıyla. Dionysos ise tam zıttı şeyleri temsil etmekteydi. Görünenin ardında yatanları, sezgileri, taşkın duyguları, esrikliği ve müziği barındırıyordu içerisinde. Bu bağlamda Dionysosçu yön olmadan tragedyanın anlamsız olduğu kanısına varıyor, hatta Dionysosçuluğu tamamen ön plana çıkarıyordu.
Zaman zaman uyumu ve ölçüyü temsil eden Apolloncu yöne karşı çıksa da birbirlerinin tamamlayıcısı olduğunu belirtiyordu sıkça.
Tragedyanın Doğuşu (Die Geburt Der Tragödie) Nietzsche'nin ilk yapıtı olarak ortaya çıkmış. 1872 yılında bu yapıtı yazan Nietzsche'nin en büyük ilham kaynağı Richard Wagner. Alman opera bestecisi olan Wagner'dan fazlasıyla etkilendiği görülen Nietzsche, yapıtı içerisinde ona atıfta bulunduğu bir önsöze yer vermiş. Aslen "Die Geburt Der Tragödie Aus Dem Geiste Der Musik"; yani "Müziğin Ruhundan Tragedyanın Doğuşu” isimle yazılmıştır bu yapıt. Kitap, ilk olarak önsöz niteliğinde olan 8 bölüme ayrılarak başlıyor. Sonrasında Richard Wagner'e önsöz kısmı yer alıyor. Ve en sonunda kitabın kendisi başlıyor. Ana kitap, 25 bölümden oluşmakta. Tragedyanın ne olduğu, kaynağı, özellikleri anlatılarak başlıyor.
Yapıt bir şölen niteliğine bürünmüş durumda. Edebiyat, felsefe, tragedya, dram yazarlarından pek çok tanıdık isim çıkıyor okuyucunun karşısına. Bu tanıdık isimleri gören okuyucu, yakın bir tanıdığını görmüş kadar mutlu oluyor adeta. Goethe, Schiller, Winckelmann, Sokrates, Platon, Schopenhauer, Euripides, Sophokles, Aiskhylos ve daha niceleri. Euripides'e fazlasıyla kızgın olduğu dikkatlerden kaçmıyor. Çünkü onun tragedyanın bir parçası olarak gördüğü dionysosu öldürdüğünü düşünüyor; kendi getirdiği teknikler ile. Zaman zaman Sokrates'in bazı öğretilerine; Sokratesçi düşünceye karşı çıkıyor. Nietzsche, aklın ve mantığın duyguları ve bireyselciliği öldürdüğünü düşünüyor fazlasıyla.
Tragedyanın Doğuşu ile Apollon ve Dionysos ile tanışan okuyucu, onları kendisine indirgemeye başlıyor belli bir süre sonra. Özellikle Dionysosçu tarafı kendine mal ediyor. Çünkü insanda duygular, tutkular, esriklik, sezgicilik fazlasıyla mevcut. Tragedyanın, dionysosçu yanıyla birlikte, ruhundan gelen müziği duyuyor aynı zamanda okuyucu. Kendi ruhunun yarattığı müziğe kulak kesiliyor ve kendinin farkına varıyor. Okuyucu, aldığı bu unutulmaz ve eşsiz hazzın doruklarında kendini kaybediyor, ruhani anlamda bir yükseliş hissediyor içinde. O anlatılamaz hazzı tatmak isteyenlere yapıt tavsiyemdir. Belki de sizler de Dionysos'u barındırıyorsunuzdur ruhunuzda...