With this one I think I'm finally getting Nietzsche, as this is an early work which introduces a number of concepts which, though he didn't continue with them in whole, he still retained their essence. The most important one is how closely tied aesthetics, ethics, and epistomology are, which prefigures many of his later stances on morals and reason. Even stronger to me this time around is his timeliness which lays testimony to his astute historical sense. The institutions of art at the time were superfluous, bourgeoise, and decadent with artistry as an afterthought. He does well to diagnose this, and his ideas (he hardly makes direct reference to painting) predict the course of the next half century of art, from the socratism of the realists at the time of his writing, the dionysian of the impressionists to come, and the apollonian of the early 20th century. And Nietzsche is overall more orderly and structured here; despite developing his skill of prose flourishes, here we see him philosophizing with a hammer and chisel instead of just the hammer. It's definitely an early work, it's not bombastic like his other writings, and he himself treated it with the criticism most authors do with their early works. It's still a good aesthetic work full of insight, an original blend of lit criticism and philosophy, and probably the best work to start on Nietzsche if you want a better sense of what he's about behind the edgy tattoo aphorisms. Solid Recommendation.

Griechische Tragödie als Verschmelzung des dionysischen und des apollinischen Prinzips erreicht mit Aischylos und Sophokles ihre höchste Balance. Niedergang beginnt mit Sokrates und Euripides, die das Dionysische zugunsten rationaler und moralischer Klarheit verdrängen. Wiedergeburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik durch Wagner. An der Stelle nationalistische Züge…

Das Dionysische verkörpert für Nietzsche eine bejahende Haltung zum Leben, die Leiden und Chaos integriert: „Ist Pessimismus notwendig das Zeichen des Niedergangs, Verfalls, des Misratenseins? Der ermüdeten und geschwächten Instinkte? Gibt es einen Pessismus der Stärke? Eine intellektuelle Vorneigung für das Harte, das Schauerliche, das Böse, das Problematische des Daseins?“.

The Birth of Tragedy is by far the better written and useful of the three works by Friedrich Nietzsche that I have so far read. Thus proving that when he is not angrily ranting about religion and morality, that Nietzsche does have important points to make about humanity. That is not to say that Nietzsche does not have his own pointed comments about religion in this narrative argument that he creates, more that these comments are superseded by the other arguments created by Nietzsche.

In the foreword to this edition, Nietzsche himself claims that he looks back with an academic disgust at his writing in this book. He claims that it is the sickly, sweet and confident work of a much younger man, as if that is a clear problem with the work itself. I myself (perhaps because I am a younger man) do not see this as an issue altogether and see the older Nietzsche as falling into the trap of becoming increasingly bitter, sceptical and closed-minded. Ironically everything that he accuses religion of fostering. Personally, reading The Birth of Tragedy I note that it appears as if Nietzsche was headed down a path that hinted at accepting a kind of Christian, or other religious, spirituality and his older persona would not allow him to accept the direction of his conclusions. Sad to say, Nietzsche 'throws the baby out with the bathwater' when it comes to anything connected to religion.

Speaking about this, it becomes clear that even from a younger age Nietzsche had this stumbling block when it came to religion. In his introductory notes, Nietzsche states that he created this work on the basis that, more or less, he wished to find a force that denoted that which was 'Anti-Christ'. Or, according to him, denied a sense of Christian morality, that was amoral as life is amoral, and was also artistic. The prompting of such words amounting to a blatant suggestion that Christianity or modern religion could not be artistic. Which personally is an insulting suggestion and one which again causes me to wonder why Nietzsche hates the Christian ethic so very much. Certainly, the modern day Christian artist may work within a box (hence my ultimate respect for those people who attempt to break ground and boxes - like Switchfoot or Skillet), but that is not enough to say that art cannot be made by Christians or by religious individuals. It is, in fact, a denial of history to state as much.

That aside, the argument made across the entirety of this volume is what I am really here to discuss. And the argument that Nietzsche makes is that art focuses around two different forces. He argues that life similarly focuses around two forces, like good or evil, order and chaos. For art these two dichotomous forces are named by Nietzsche as the Appolonian and the Dionysian - named after the two Greek gods of art.

Nietzsche classifies the Appolonian as representative of order and structure within art. For instance he represents this as linked to sculpture. The Dionysian is linked to the chaotic forces of art - to music for example - and the case is made that art flows from and between these two forces. As it is also explained, the Appolonian is like dreaming and the Dionysian is like intoxication. These are two states of consciousness that are linked together and yet are separate entities.

In many ways this work is about the history of art and tragedy in particular as seen from the perspective of a history of the Greeks. He discusses how tragedy and comedy are part of these Dionysian and Appolonian forces and that particularly the chaotic Dionysian is part of life and art itself. However, Nietzsche also discusses a period of time in which tragedy became usurped by Socratic thinking. In other words tragedy dies in an age of questions being asked and answered to provide rational solutions to that which may be irrational. However, Nietzsche concludes by stating that we may enter a period whereby we see a 'rebirth of tragedy' as an art form and as is accepted in life.

As stated, there is plenty of literary value to be taken from this book. I have an issue with Nietzsche's constant need to belittle religion, yet he'd probably also have an issue with the fact that I bring up my views and beliefs due to their links to 'religion'. That said if there is one Nietzsche book I recommend it would be this.

I was first introduced to Nietzsche's "Dionysiac" and "Apollonian" distinction while reading Kaufman's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist last year. While Kaufman's description was (inevitably) vague it seemed to put into words something I had only translated to energetic gestures. In retrospect (especially after actually reading the text) it is obvious I was reading too much of myself into Nietzsche, it contains what I wanted it to only obliquely and only even that if I squint. In what follows I continue to read too much of myself into Nietzsche.

tIt is clear from the outset Nietzsche is big picture kind of guy, he is not rolling around in the mud with the pedants over exact definitions or the details of intricate systems. For this reason I found it more fruitful to consider the ideas he is gesturing at rather than attempt to perfectly define his positions and the arguments mounted to defend them. Whenever I read these old-timey philosophers they always appear to be engaging in a particular type of pre-empirical inquiry which can be most pretentiously described as speculative genealogy but which we'd conversationally refer to as bullshitting. It is the same critical mode you are in when you and a friend are really getting to the bottom of what is wrong with society and begin cracking open the psyche of modern (wo)man and theorizing, sans evidence, on the impact of social media, the internet, nationalism, and how they coalesce to instill certain feelings and opinions (which just so happen to be the ones manifest in yourself) which encapsulate the spirit of our era.

tWhile I find this way of thinking no less infuriating than boring marginal empiricists who think we must have overwhelming evidence before we can accept even obvious claims, it does leave the argument feeling very subjective.

Nietzsche describes two forms of artistic expression (or maybe two origins of expression (energies?)?) the Apollonian and Dionysiac. The Apollonian represents the force of creation which represents order, individuation, and truth. Nietzsche says it is akin to something like dreaming. One is delivered the truth in dreams although it is slanted. It is the force of individuation because how could a force of truth not be, the notion of truth itself relies on the existence of multiple things which may or may not be categorized as true once studied. If the Apollonian creative force can be described as dreaming then the Dionysiac can be described as intoxication. This is the force of rawness and of oneness. It is a reminder of the essential connectedness of all things. It is an assimilation of oneself back into the universal order, behaving without separation, without thought. Nietzsche uses music as the quintessential example of this force because it is consumed all at once and although composed of several overlapping sounds with many different rhythms and timbres, it is felt at once and wholly. It does not and indeed cannot be explained because this would involve tearing it apart. It is a thing, one thing, reminding you that we are all one thing. Nietzsche uses a sculptor as the representative artist of the Apollonian feeling likely because they are directly involved in the cutting out of reality to make way for one thing. This thing represents something and it is cut out from the rest of reality.

tWhile one can pedantically pin down Nietzsche's terminology and point out flaws I think this would drastically miss the point as well as, as he would put it, approach this essay in a far too Apollonian way. To me the distinction he draws made perfect sense and had a strong intuitive appeal the very first time I heard it even though I had not grasped Nietzsche's particular use. I think it is a deep insight that there are indeed two kinds of forces and they could even be called "creative" forces under a particular interpretation. Although for me I think of the Apollonian force as that part of us which follows the logical corollaries to their tails, the part that wants to reproduce ourselves and our beliefs. It is the part of you that feels inclined to argue when someone says the Earth is flat. It is not because they are directly hurting you nor (in one of your more honest moods you may admit) because it indirectly hurt society at large for someone to go on believing this, it is because at some level we recognize we must either be right or wrong. Because there is no in-between, the rigid metal chains of modus ponens demand of us that we perpetuate truth on this earth. It might even be more fair to say that the force of Truth should be identified with that of the Apollonian force, it is the force of conformity, the force which doesn't understand why there should be difference, the force which despises difference. And this should not be mistaken as some trite political point regarding immigrants or some equally banal political immediacy, but instead regarding that aesthetic preference which exists in all of us to have others believe and behave as you do. To me, sure, its proponents include sculptors and realist painters, but also the likes of Dostoevsky and Dickens, moral authors who believe the point of creation is perpetuation of their moral standards, of their moral characters, propaganda is art to these people. Even further from Nietzsche's point, Science as an enterprise is the most perfect manifestation of the Apollonian energies. No difference is allowed, a consensus is assumed to exists and everyone must fight it out on the linguistic battlefield to argue for their right to continue speaking of such-and-such a thing in such-and-such a way. It is the straightforward creativity of problem solving, of creative solutions, and of wit. Difference is heresy and it appears idle to fight for a position which is not currently in favor.

tSo why doesn't the Apollonian force cover all creative acts? Why does the above not sound to us exactly like the creative process? Maybe it even looks a tad dystopian to certain eyes. I take this to be more directly the question Nietzsche is asking. While he doesn't word it like this or approach it in anything but an implicit way (and hopes to bring in this eternal "oneness" which German romantics love so much), I find it much more compelling that this is the question he is asking. Why is there that remaining part of us which just likes difference. It is the smirk under our frown when we learn there are those who trash our most cherished beliefs. We are glad they are out there even if we wish they weren't. Where does this come from and how should we understand it? Well Nietzsche proposes the Dionysiac creative energy as a way to pin down this problem. It is the intoxication of creativity. You know the best way to order the story is chronologically, but yet you can't help but put the end before the beginning. You know this sentence should be straightforward and declarative and yet... wouldn't this be a pretty metaphor?

tI see Nietzsche as comparing these two energies which do not necessarily contradict each other. At times one is more dominant at other times the other, sometimes they are balanced, sometimes they even complement each other. Through this lens we can see why Nietzsche appreciated the Greek Tragedy so much. On one hand, it is an historical retelling, we know the events, we know how they unfold with deterministic ruthless logic, what could be more Apollonian? And yet we are forced, by the acting, the chorus, the music, to care about something it makes no sense to care about. It makes about as much sense to cry over Oedipus' fate as it does to cry while reading a book entitled The Fall of the Roman Empire, it was right there on the fucking cover. And yet somehow, against reason, we are compelled to resist against what we know has to come. As inevitable and rhythmic as the tragedy beginning "All Men Are Mortal..." and yet there is a sick smirk hiding somewhere.

I decided on a review of works by Nietzsche and considered reading as many of his works (most likely in chronological order), so this came up first. Having read other Nietzsche works I must say though that this one was a bit on the difficult side, rather wordy and overly descriptive. Generally, he presents thoughts on the tragedy art form distinguishing between the Dionysian and Apollonian (the disordered and the ordered), with existence being in the midst of constant struggle as though battling the two elements. He considered Greek tragedies as embodying the highest form of art due to the inclusion of both these elements. Though Schopenhauer was one of his influences, Nietzsche didn't agree with his negation of the will, considering life as worthwhile despite surrounding negatives.
Published in 1872 it should be noted that initially it was meet with much criticism. The essay 'An Attempt at Self Criticism', was added to a later edition published in 1886...
Read my poetic review here: https://formuchdeliberation.wordpress...

خلاصة لكثير مُسهب التفاصيل وغير ذا أهمية للقاريء العادي بشكل عام ، تخرج بنتيجة أن هذا الــ نيتشه الشاب المُتحمس في بدايته كان كُتلة من الحسّ والمشاعر وفيض من الافكار المُتلاطمة تحملها لُغة جميلة ومميزة ، أشد ما أعجبني ومالمستهُ في صفحات هذا العمل في بدايته ، هو إيمان نيتشه بالوحدة الألهية في الخلق التي تعكس جوهر الوجود وسببيته و بوهم الثنائية الذي يلف العقل ويُشتتهُ، ودور المعاناة والألم في اعادة الأنسان ليقظته وصحوته ، مدعوماً بقوة الفن كضرورة لتحمل بشاعة هذا الوهم وشبهه بالحقيقة والواقع المقيت لحدٍّ بَعيد .. تُرى ماذا حَدث ليكفر نيتشه بكل هذا الوعي المُرهف واليقين الخالص ويتغرب بعيداً في ضياعه وعَبثيته؟!
هذا مادفعني لقراءة هذا الكتاب كمُقدمة لقراءة باقي أعمال نيتشه وخاصة كتابيّ " إنسان مُفرط قي إنسانيته " و" هكذا تكلم زرادشت " اللذين يُمثلنا مع الكتاب موضوع التقييم أعلاه أهم ثلاث مرحل في حياة ومسيرة ونضوج نيتشه الفكري والكتابي .،

http://conclusionirrelevante.blogspot...

Nietzsche construyó un ensayo muy ambicioso. El nacimiento de la tragedia no es solamente un tratado acerca de cómo y por qué surgió, vivió y murió sin reproducirse la tragedia clásica griega sino que, al mismo tiempo, fue también una valoración en pequeñito de toda la cultura occidental hasta el momento. Quizá ese sea su mayor problema: la oposición entre lo dionisíaco y lo apolíneo le proporcionó a Nietzsche una dicotomía cuya potencia explicativa rebasaba con amplitud los propósitos de su ensayo mientras que, de no haber recurrido a ella, no podría haber justificado sus tesis. Sin embargo, esa tensión subyacente en el ensayo del pensador alemán confiere a éste un tono caústico y apocalíptico y, por ello mismo, trágico. Aspectos estos que emergen desgarrados de las profundidades del texto para dotar de fuerza, pasión y, por qué no, vida a la obra. Nietzsche terminaría renunciando a algunas de las ideas centrales de este libro. Sin embargo, no es de extrañar que decidiera reeditarlo unos años más tarde, pues, a pesar de todo, y aunque no se comulgue ante lo aquí expuesto, es innegable la belleza de la prosa del filósofo alemán. Solamente por eso, por sus cualidades apolíneas, este libro debería ser leído.

Tragedya'nın Doğuşu'nu okudum. İlk defa bir Nietzsche eseri okudum, beynim zonkluyor şu an. Hem içerik olarak hakim olduğum bir alanda yazılmasından dolayı hem de yazarın ilk kitabı olduğu için bu kitaptan yazarın eserlerini okumaya başladım. Çok da doğru bir tercih yapmamışım meğerse.

Nietzsche bu kitabında anlatım olarak çok başarısız. Sürekli tekrarlara düşmüş ve lafı ağzında geveleyip durmuş. Araştırdığım kadarıyla ve daha önce okuyup yarım bıraktığım Böyle Buyurdu Zerdüşt tecrübesinden yola çıkarak yazarın diğer kitaplarında anlatım tarzını düzelttiğini, daha anlaşılır bir dille eserlerini kaleme aldığını biliyorum. Aksi taktirde, diğer kitaplarında da Tragedyanın Doğuşu'nda kullandığı anlatım tarzını kullansaydı bu kadar büyük bir filozof olarak ünlenmezdi.

Bu kitabı okumadan önce Yunan Mitolojisi'yle birlikte Sophokles, Aiskhylos ve Euripides'in eserlerine az çok hakim olmanız lazım. Ayrıca Sokrates'in görüşlerini ve hayatını da araştırmanız gerekiyor. Ben tüm bunları bilmeme rağmen bile eserin tamamını anlayamadım.

U "Rođenju tragedije" ima i kukolja, posebno onog o kom je Niče toliko voleo da govori - idealističkog - i pomalo bljutavog, logički neutemeljenog, platonovski nastrojenog i pesnički nedostatnog, ali i čistih, nepomućenih redova zanimljivih teorija koje više od toga da pretenduju na istinu, koja je još jedan od onih privida što nastaju u sudaru dve sile, optička varka, fenomen koji je uvek promenljiv i koji pokušava da se inkorporira u tvrdnju da je "postojanje sveta opravdano jedino estetskim fenomenom", dakle, više od toga, pretenduje na pokazivanje nove perspektive, na poklanjanje antičkoj tragediji, a samim tim i čitaocima, izvesnog perspektivizma.

Friedrich Nietzsche is a good philosopher, "The Birth of Tragedy" explains and explores the relationship between order and chaos, and how they are both interlinked. If one has order, one has chaos, if one is in order, one is in chaos, Nietzsche expands on these themes in "Beyond Good and Evil." Both good and evil come from the same place. Nietzsche's argument that art is necessary to heal oneself of tragedy, it is very similar to Aristotle's "Poetics", catharsis through art. "The Birth of Tragedy" is a good read.

This is very obviously a major work of literary criticism. Nietzsche succeeds with the very improbable endeavor of presenting a new vision of Greek tragedy in opposition to the interpretation of Aristotle. Reducing to the point of absurdity, Aristotle argues that tragedy offers us catharsis; that is to say, it purges us of our existential anxiety whereas Nietzsche argues that tragedy is a celebration of the basic absurdity of man's condition.

Nietzsche attacks with considerable success everything I learned about Greek tragedy 45 years ago as an undergraduate and have believed without question ever since. It was explained to me that Euripides was the greatest of the Greek tragedians because of the realism of his characters and his skepticism with respect to the Greek Gods. Aeschylus and Sophocles were too respectful of the Olympic deities and their theatre was considered to be awkward by contemporary standards. Euripides Bacchantes, in which the protagonist is murdered by a mob of drunken women participating in the spring bacchanalia, was presented as his chef d'oeuvre.

Nietzsche in contrasts considers the bacchanalia or the Dionysian rites to have been essential to the dynamism of Greek culture. He argues that all protagonists in Greek drama were based on Dionysus in that all died a horrible death not because of their faults but simply because of an absurd fate. Greek tragedy then in the time of Aeschylus and Sophocles was a celebration of the courage of the Dionysian man to fight courageously against a cruel destiny. Euripides destroyed Greek tragedy by judging events by the standards of common sense and by criticizing the Gods for their cruelty or worse questioning their existence.

Plato finished the work of undermining Greek tragedy begun by Euripides by giving the Hellenistic world a new hero Sophocles, the purely theoretical man, in contrast to Dionysus a God of spontaneous nature. Two thousand dreadful years followed. Fortunately Germany had come to the rescue of Hellenic culture. In Nietzsche's opinion, Wagner with his operas had finally restored Greek tragedy to its position of prominence in our European-Hellenistic civilization.

As literary criticsm, the Birth of Tragedy is absolutely brilliant. I am no way qualified to comment on it as philosophy. Being Catholic and Aristotelian I cannot agree with Nietzsche but I must acknowledge the brilliance of this particular work.

Do not even consider reading this work unless you have read the Bacchantes by Euripides, Oedipus Rex by Sophocles and the Frogs by Aristophanes.

someone has to put henry winter, richard papen and nietzsche in the same room