"El Nacimiento de la Tragedia" de Friedrich Nietzsche es una obra magistral que despierta la mente y desafía las convenciones en la misma medida. Al leerlo, me encontré inmerso en la profundidad de su análisis sobre la dualidad de las fuerzas apolíneas y dionisíacas que dan forma a la naturaleza humana y a la esencia del arte trágico.

Nietzsche nos guía a través de un viaje fascinante hacia los fundamentos de la tragedia griega, desentrañando la interacción entre la razón y la pasión, la mesura y el caos. Su perspectiva única sobre la estética y la cultura clásica ilumina aspectos profundos de la psique humana, ofreciendo una visión penetrante de la creatividad y la expresión artística.

La prosa de Nietzsche en "El Nacimiento de la Tragedia" es tan apasionada como la propia temática, lo que añade una dimensión emocional a su análisis filosófico. Su capacidad para tejer conceptos complejos con una narrativa cautivadora demuestra su genialidad literaria y filosófica. Al final de la lectura, logre apreciar especialmente cómo Nietzsche conecta la esencia de la tragedia con aspectos fundamentales de la experiencia humana, proporcionando una base sólida para entender la naturaleza de nuestras emociones y conflictos internos.

Este libro es una obra maestra que ha resistido el paso del tiempo y sigue siendo relevante para cualquier persona interesada en la filosofía, la psicología y las artes. "El Nacimiento de la Tragedia" merece sin duda una calificación de 5 estrellas, ya que ofrece una inmersión profunda en la esencia misma de la existencia humana y el arte trágico.

En resumen, "El Nacimiento de la Tragedia" es una lectura esencial que proporciona una comprensión inigualable de la interconexión entre la razón y la emoción, la luz y la oscuridad. Una obra maestra atemporal que sigue siendo una fuente de inspiración y reflexión.

sometimes when you displace something from its original context and understanding you can actually understand it, and not just "the shadows on the wall", as it were. i suppose this is why it makes sense to me that most of this book isn't about tragedy at all.

Ottima edizione con un corpus di schede analitiche utili per inquadrare meglio il pensiero del filosofo soprattutto se lo si fa da principiante e autodidatta.

In order to compose this piece of experimental aesthetic theory, young Nietzsche presents the ancient Greek’s attic tragedy, as the starting point of the short-lived union between the Dionysiac, and the Apollonian, two deities of the Hellenic world that he believes to be the two opposing forces in forming a work of art. He then puts attic tragedy in opposition to the later prevailing form of art, namely the Socratic art.

Rejecting the moral stiffness of the critic and the logical Socratic artist, Nietzsche longs for the return of the Dionysiac drunkard artist and the good old tragedy dominated era of the ancient greeks. He believes that in watching the demise of the tragic hero, the spectator experiences his own inevitable death, but through the appearance that is created on stage he experiences this death through the body of the hero, be it Oedipus or Tristan.

Although there’s some uncertainties in the historical accuracy of the text, and Nietzsche did choose to use less well-documented sources in parts for the sake of supporting his argument, Birth of Tragedy still is a great literary experiment that creates a new frame of reference for art enthusiasts to understand art and the artistic process.

Τέτοια βιβλία και τόσο μεγάλοι φιλόσοφοι είναι υπεράνω κάθε κριτικής και βαθμολογίας. Ο Νίτσε υπήρξε επιπλέον και εξαιρετικός λογοτέχνης που μοιράζεται παραστατικά τις πρωτότυπες ιδέες του. Είναι πάντα προτιμότερο να τον διαβάζεις απευθείας χωρίς καμιά διαμεσολάβηση.

n  Review en Français • en Español • in Englishn
Malgré des remarques que ce livre est bizarre et ésotérique, je trouve qu’il offre une vision claire de l’évolution de la tragédie en Grèce Antique. Le livre introduit aussi une façon de voir l’art et la réalité, et donc la vie, d’après deux points de vus: l’apollinien et le dionysiaque. Je crois que les propositions offertes par Nietzsche se tiennent bien par elles-mêmes malgré qu’elles soient certainement dépaysantes. Elles sont définitivement ancrées dans l’expérience humaine et l’évolution de la religiosité (si on pense à Göbekli Tepe par exemple et au rôle de l’alcool (et des hallucinogènes) dans les rites et les rassemblements). Au fil de ma lecture j’ai pu remarquer certaines idées et quelquefois seulement une phrase qui ont influencés des créations modernes comme le film Matrix qui reprend l’idée que la réalité qu’on expérimente est une illusion.

La lecture est ardue en début, mais les chapitres finaux résument les points centraux du contenu et expliquent la vision et les objectifs de l’oeuvre.

Absolument à lire pour ceux qui aiment les classiques, la culture, l’art ou tout simplement un défi de réflexion philosophique ou spirituelle. C’est une lecture qui secoue.
—
A pesar de oír que este libro es extraño y esotérico, encuentro que ofrece una vision clara de la evolución de la tragedia en Grecia Antigua. El libro describe también una manera de ver el arte y la realidad, y entonces la vida, desde dos puntos de vista: el Apolíneo y el Dionisíaco. Creo que las proposiciones ofertas por Nietzsche se sostienen bien a pesar de ser un tanto exóticas. Son definitivamente representativas de la experiencia humana y de la evolución de la religiosidad (si uno piensa a Göbekli Tepe y al papel que jugo el alcohol (y los alucinógenos) en ritos y reuniones). Al transcurso de mi lectura pude notar ciertas ideas y a veces solo una frase que influyeron creaciones modernas como la película Matrix que retoma la idea que la realidad que experimentamos es una ilusión.

La lectura no es simple al principio, pero los capítulos finales hacen un resumen de los puntos centrales y del contenido, explicando la vision y los objetivos de la obra.

A leer para los que aman los clásicos, la cultura, el arte o simplemente un desafío de reflexion filosófica o espiritual. Es una lectura que sacude.
—
Despite remarks that this book is crazy and esoteric, I find that the vision Nietzsche offers is clear on the subject of the evolution of tragedy in Ancient Greece. The book also describes a way of perceiving art and reality, therefore life, from two points of view: the Apollonian and the Dionysian. I think the author’s propositions stand well by themselves despite being exotic. They are definitely representative of the human experience and the evolution of religiosity (if we think of Göbekli Tepe and the part played by alcohol (and hallucinogens) on rites and gatherings). It was also interesting to encounter ideas and sometimes just sentences that had big influences on contemporary creations such as the Matrix which retakes the idea that the reality we experience is an illusion.

This read was tough at the start, but the final chapters summarized the central points of the content and explained the vision and objectives of the work.

A must read for those who love the classical tradition, culture in general, art or simply like an intellectual challenge of philosophical or spiritual nature. It’s a read that shakes one up.

A citi Nietzsche înseamnă a asista la o lungă prelegere (de catedră), sau nu, despre luciditate, o reînnoire a spiritului meu declamator se produce, de fiecare dată în mine, când reiau o carte de Nietzsche.
Nașterea tragediei am început-o din vară, nu a mers, spiritul meu, pe atunci, încă stagna și nu putea atârnă liber de placa infinitului, acum o săptămână, am continuat-o, nu aș fi putut să o las așa în neștire, o cartea de Nietzsche e totuși un "eveniment" pentru mine, iar Nașterea tragediei este a cincea carte citită de la filosof.
Cartea reprezinta mai mult un elogiu adus filosofiei antice de unde se inspira Nietzsche, Socrate îi e zeu și demon.
Natura dionisiaca a omului e confruntata cu cea apolonica.
Are loc bătălia între echilibrul materiei și dezordinea ei, adica dionisiacul. Nu se ajunge niciodată la un verdict concret.

Dionisiacul e la fel de liber ca apolonicul, în viziunea lui Nietzsche, are loc o "forma mentis " adică o stare a minții dintre ethos și pathos, cele două stari permanente ale omului obișnuit care se afla în coliziune și se completează una pe alta până la marele "război" cognitiv.
Nașterea tragediei este, în primul rând, un lung eseu filosofic, o prelegere de catedră, deși Nietzsche respinge acest aspect cu vehemență, un fapt cunoscut fiind că el și-a dat demisia din profesor universitar.
Nebunia ajunsă într-o stare apropiată catharsisului își caută refugiul în antici, ca o alinarea surda, Nietzsche îl aclama pe Gothe, Schopenhauer, ca și cum și-ar cauta scăparea în cei ca el, ca și cum s-ar simți izgonit cu forța din fața catedrei universitare, unde în ultimele clipe, ajunsese să-i frecventeze cursurile doar 2-3 studenți.
Considerat de critici ca promotor al nazismului ideologic alături de Richard Wagner, Nietzsche dedică o carte exclusiv anticilor, dar și muzicii lui Bach, Mozart, Richard Wagner.
Muzicalitate operei se întrezărește mai mult în a doua parte a cărții, cuvintele curg precum șuvoiul tăios a unui țurțure care se dezgheață încet, atârnând la streșina unui acoperiș.

I think Nietzsche is the greatest cultural critic of all time, even if I am generally against anti-materialist philosophy. This is one of the entries that shows why that is the case, understanding dynamic culture as a process of becoming rather than one with a fixed end point.

He is going with Apollo and Dionysius but in other contexts you could use Shiva and Vishnu or Amaterasu and Susanoo, etc. But tellingly, you couldn't use this process in an Abrahamic monotheist religion, for there lies only moralism, absolutism, and teleology, not understanding of the chaotic balance that really makes the world work. Its no wonder so much of occidental philosophy is so pathological and extremist.

Is pessimism necessarily a sign of decline, decay, degeneration, weary and weak instincts–as it once was in India and now is, to all appearances, among us, “modern” men and Europeans?

Nietsche’s first book is largely an essay analysing Greek tragedy and poetics, of little relevance to a reader of philosophy. However, in between extensive discussions of Euripides, Sophocles and Homer burst out, as if in an uncontrollable passion, sparks of deep wisdom, foreshadowing the phenomenon of Nietzsche as the self-described “Socrates who plays music,” that would emerge within a decade of this essay.

Nietzsche’s central concern here is the contradiction inherent in Greek art: the celebration of the heroic grandeur of the gods on the one hand, and a pessimistic rejection of existence on the other. How could both coexist in such harmony within the same society? He reconciles this by positing two basic forces that underlie art: the Apollinian and the Dionysian. Much has been written about this distinction created by Nietzsche, yet to me his definition of them seems fairly straightforward. He defines them both, at least at first, in Schopenhauerian terms: while the Apollinian is the struggle for individuation (or in Schopenhauer’s pretentious language, the principium individuationis of the will), the Dionysian is a chaotic passion for rejecting this individuation, and to subsume one’s own individuality into the universal will-in-itself, to get lost in nonduality.

In the Dionysian dithyramb man is incited to the greatest exaltation of all his symbolic faculties; something never before experienced struggles for utterance–the annihilation of the veil of maya, oneness as the soul of the race and of nature itself.

…Apollo, however, again appears to us as the apotheosis of the principium individuationis, in which alone is consummated the perpetually attained goal of the primal unity, its redemption through mere appearance.

One also finds interesting thoughts on Christianity as pessimism, which I believe is quite accurate:

Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in “another” or “better” life.

Given that Nietzsche relies extensively on Schopenhauer’s terminology in this text, it should not be thought that The Birth of Tragedy is fundamentally a Schopenhauerian analysis of tragedy. This is because Nietzsche’s break with Schopenhauer has already begun here, in his (admittedly subtle) rejection of pessimism. In one of the best (and unfortunately brief) passages of this short essay, he writes, against the aesthetic theory of Schopenhauer:

…the subject, the willing individual that furthers his own egoistic ends, can be conceived of only as the antagonist, not as the origin of art. Insofar as the subject is the artist, however, he has already been released from his individual will, and has become, as it were, the medium through which the one truly existent subject celebrates his release in appearance…it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.

Hence, life becomes meaningful only because we have the aesthetic manner of tragedy, which we can use to represent our (true, inner) existence – instead of opting for pessimistic philosophy, mere reflections on the consciousness of our mortal chains, we can celebrate existence by aestheticizing it into the tragedy that it is. This allows the will to appreciate and even celebrate itself as representation, in the Apollinian joy of individuation in appearance and the simultaneous, countervailing Dionysian intoxication in cutting the veil of maya.

Here, when the danger to his will is greatest, art approaches as a saving sorceress, expert at healing. She alone knows how to turn these nauseous thoughts about the horror or absurdity of existence into notions with which one can live: these are the sublime as the artistic taming of the horrible, and the comic as the artistic discharge of the nausea of absurdity.

I only wish that Nietzsche expanded on the above passages as opposed to analysing the Greek tragedies at the length which he does. These passages mark the beginning of Nietzsche as an existential philosopher, concerned with the meaning of one’s existence and not with ontology.
Much of Nietzsche’s thought (at least in this early text of his) celebrates life as an almost-divine play of individuation, a play of the Being who chose to Become: and here I see parallels with Sri Aurobindo (and the Vaishnava doctrine of leela as a whole) who was influenced by Nietzsche.

Thus all our knowledge of art is basically quite illusory, because as knowing beings we are not one and identical with that being which, as the sole author and spectator of this comedy of art, prepares a perpetual entertainment for himself.

We also find a very interesting discussion of Socrates as the “theoretical optimist” who eventually brings about the end of tragedy because of his belief in truth as good, and error as evil. A call for a “new Socratism” is issued: one that can embrace music, and hence the Dionysian instead of shunning the Dionysian from all existence. Nietzsche thus anticipates himself.

We might, therefore, just as well call the world embodied music as embodied will; and this is the reason why music makes every painting, and indeed every scene of real life and of the world, at once appear with higher significance, certainly all the more, in proportion as its melody is analogous to the inner spirit of the given phenomenon.

There is so much more to discuss here. Nietzsche really fits in a truck-load of exciting, but brief, ideas each of which may deserve an essay of its own. Interestingly, he discusses 3 types of cultures: the Alexandrian, the Hellenic, and the Buddhistic. The modern world, for him, is Alexandrian: the culture famous only for its extensive library, but not for its original contributions: this he calls the Socratic love of knowledge for the sake of knowledge -

It is an eternal phenomenon: the insatiable will always finds a way to detain its creatures in life and compel them to live on, by means of an illusion spread over things. One is chained by the Socratic love of knowledge and the delusion of being able thereby to heal the eternal wound of existence; another is ensnared by art’s seductive veil of beauty fluttering before his eyes; still another by the metaphysical comfort that beneath the whirl of phenomena eternal life flows on indestructibly…

This book deserves to be read very closely and thought about while reading it. In hindsight, I should have taken a notebook and written my thoughts on this while reading it, because it is easy to skim over and miss out on an immense wisdom hidden even in less noteworthy passages.

This book helps me understand why I don't like Socrates: his generalization about rationality and virtue is too optimistic, unartistic, and will-negating. In one word, boring. Rationality itself can never make life worth living. Disillusion, semblance, errors, deceptions, irrational impulses, all of which Socrates negate, are inseparable from life, they are what life ultimately rests on. What can theoretical knowledge possibly lead to, other than the killing of action, or the nihilistic revelation that it makes more sense to die than live? What makes life worth-living? Nietzsche's answer is tragedy, the unity of Apolline semblance and Dionysiac intoxication, the unity of Apolline individuality and Dionysiac non-individual will, the unity of the true essence of the world and the necessary illusion that makes it tolerable to us. The Birth of Tragedy is a strong critic of Socratism and Western culture following from that. German Romanticism at its zenith!

S5: .... we know the subjective artist only as the poor artist, and throughout the entire range of art we demand first of all the conquest of the subjective, redemption from the “ego,” and the silencing of the individual will and desire. Indeed, we find it impossible to believe in any truly artistic production, however insignificant, if it is without objectivity, without pure contemplation devoid of interest. [Note - a concept from Schopenhauer] Hence our aesthetics must solve the problem of how the “lyrist” is possible as an artist - he who, according to the experience of all ages, is continually saying “I” and running through the entire chromatic scale of his passions and desires. …. Let us add to this the most important phenomenon of all ancient lyric poetry: they took for granted the union, indeed the identity, of the lyrist with the musician. Compared with this, our modern lyric poetry seems like the statue of a god without a head.

S8: We talk so abstractly about poetry because all of us are usually bad poets. At bottom, the aesthetic phenomenon is simple: let anyone have the ability to behold continually a vivid play and to live constantly surrounded by hosts of spirits, and he will be a poet; let anyone feel the urge to transform himself and to speak out of other bodies and souls, and he will be a dramatist.
The Dionysian excitement is capable of communicating this artistic gift to a multitude, so they can see themselves surrounded by such a host of spirits while knowing themselves to be essentially one with them. … And this phenomenon is experienced epidemically: a whole throng experiences the magic of this transformation.

S9: [Prometheus in a poem by Goethe:]

Here I sit, forming men
in my own image,
a race to be like me,
to suffer, to weep,
to delight and to rejoice,
and to defy you,
as I do.”

….In himself, the Titanic artist found the defiant faith that he had the ability to create men and at least destroy Olympian gods, by means of his superior wisdom which, to be sure, he had to atone for with eternal suffering. The splendid “ability” of the great genius for which even eternal suffering is a slight price, the stern pride of the artist…

S18: It is an eternal phenomenon: the insatiable will always finds a way to detain its creatures in life and compels them to live on, by means of an illusion spread over things. One is chained by the Socratic love of knowledge and the delusion of being able thereby to heal the eternal wound of existence; another is ensnared by art’s seductive veil of beauty fluttering before his eyes; still another by the metaphysical comfort that beneath the whirl of phenomena, eternal life flows on indestructibly - to say nothing of the more vulgar and almost more powerful illusions which the will always has to hand. These three stages of illusion are actually designed for the more nobly formed natures, who actually feel profoundly the weight and burden of existence, and must be deluded by exquisite stimulants into forgetfulness of their displeasure. All that we call culture is made up of these stimulants and according to the proportion of the ingredients, we have either a dominantly Socratic or artistic or tragic culture: or if historical exemplifications are permitted, there is either an Alexandrian or a Hellenic or a Buddhistic culture.

...But now that the Socratic culture can only hold the sceptre of its infallibility with trembling hands; now that it has been shaken from two directions - one by the fear of its own consequences which it at length begins to surmise, and again because it no longer has its former naive confidence in the eternal validity of its foundation - it is a sad spectacle to see how the dance of its thoughts rushes longingly towards ever new forms, to embrace them,... the theoretical man, alarmed and dissatisfied at his own consequences, no longer dares entrust himself to the terrible icy current of existence: he runs timidly up and down the bank. … Our art reveals this universal distress: in vain does one accumulate the entire “world literature” around modern man for his comfort: in vain does one place oneself in the midst of the art styles and artists of all ages, so that one may give names to them as Adam did to the beasts: one still remains eternally hungry, the “critic” without joy and energy, the Alexandrian man, who is at bottom a librarian and corrector of proofs, and wretchedly goes blind from the dust of books and from printer’s errors.

S23: But without myth every culture loses the healthy natural power of its creativity: only a horizon defined by myths completes and unifies a whole cultural movement. Myth alone saves all the powers of the imagination… The images of the myth have to be the unnoticed omnipresent demonic guardians, under whose care the young soul grows to maturity and whose signs help the man to interpret his life and struggles. Even the state knows no more powerful unwritten laws than the mythical foundation that guarantees its connection with religion and its growth from mythical notions.
By way of comparison, let us now picture the abstract man, untutored by myth; abstract education; abstract morality; abstract law; the abstract state: let us imagine the lawless roving of the artistic imagination, unchecked by any native myth; let us think of a culture that has no fixed and sacred primordial site but is doomed to exhaust all possibilities and to nourish itself wretchedly on all other cultures - there we have the present age, the result of that Socratism which is bent on the destruction of myth. And now the mythless man stands eternally hungry, surrounded by all past ages and digs for roots, even if he has to dig for them among the remotest antiquities…. who would care to contribute anything to a culture that cannot be satisfied no matter how much it devours, and at whose contact the most vigorous and wholesome nourishment is changed into “history and criticism”?

The Birth of Tragedy, first published in 1872, marks the debut of Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophical career, and it left me astonished.

This book took me by surprise, primarily because of the dense network of references Nietzsche employs—references that demand a certain level of prior knowledge. Central to his argument are the works of the great Greek tragedians, Aeschylus and Sophocles. These plays, rich with complex characters and profound themes, are crucial for understanding Nietzsche's exploration of the origins of tragedy.

Personally, I’ve only read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, which gave me a glimpse into the tragic spirit Nietzsche vividly describes. He portrays a world where tragedy flourished before the rationalism of Socrates began to undermine it. However, I realized that my limited exposure to these ancient works somewhat hindered my grasp of Nietzsche's broader arguments.

Another challenge in reading this book is Nietzsche’s frequent citations of Arthur Schopenhauer, a philosopher whose works I have yet to delve into. Schopenhauer's influence is deeply woven into Nietzsche's thought, particularly in how Nietzsche develops his ideas about art and the human condition. Without familiarity with Schopenhauer’s philosophy, it can be difficult to fully appreciate the nuances of Nietzsche's argument.

Despite these challenges, I found myself captivated by Nietzsche’s exploration of the Apollonian and Dionysian principles—concepts that symbolize the dual forces of order and chaos, reason and passion, in human existence. His relentless critique of Socrates, whom he blames for the decline of Greek tragedy, also resonated with me, though it left me pondering the implications of such a stance.

Yet, in many ways, The Birth of Tragedy feels more like a philosophical treatise or a critical essay on the decline of ancient tragedy and the potential for its rebirth through the music of Richard Wagner, a composer Nietzsche admired at the time. Nietzsche suggests that Wagner’s music could revive the lost Dionysian spirit of ancient Greece, breathing new life into modern art.

In conclusion, I believe this is a book that demands more than one reading.