What do you think?
The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings
The Birth of Tragedy is one of the seminal philosophical works of the modern period. The theories developed in this relatively short text have had a profound influence on the philosophy, literature, music and politics of the twentieth century. This edition presents a new translation by Ronald Speirs and an introduction by Raymond Geuss that sets the work in its historical and philosophical context. The volume also includes two essays on related topics that Nietzsche wrote during the same period.
204 pages, Paperback
First published April 22, 1999
About the author
Friedrich Nietzsche
3,976 books26.8k followersFriedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was a German classical scholar, philosopher, and critic of culture, who became one of the most influential of all modern thinkers. He began his career as a classical philologist before turning to philosophy. He became the youngest person to hold the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel in 1869 at the age of 24, but resigned in 1879 due to health problems that plagued him most of his life; he completed much of his core writing in the following decade. In 1889, at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward a complete loss of his mental faculties, with paralysis and probably vascular dementia. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. Nietzsche died in 1900, after experiencing pneumonia and multiple strokes.
Nietzsche's work spans philosophical polemics, poetry, cultural criticism, and fiction while displaying a fondness for aphorism and irony. Prominent elements of his philosophy include his radical critique of truth in favour of perspectivism; a genealogical critique of religion and Christian morality and a related theory of master–slave morality; the aesthetic affirmation of life in response to both the "death of God" and the profound crisis of nihilism; the notion of Apollonian and Dionysian forces; and a characterisation of the human subject as the expression of competing wills, collectively understood as the will to power. He also developed influential concepts such as the Übermensch and his doctrine of eternal return. In his later work, he became increasingly preoccupied with the creative powers of the individual to overcome cultural and moral mores in pursuit of new values and aesthetic health. His body of work touched a wide range of topics, including art, philology, history, music, religion, tragedy, culture, and science, and drew inspiration from Greek tragedy as well as figures such as Zoroaster, Arthur Schopenhauer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Richard Wagner, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
After his death, Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of his manuscripts. She edited his unpublished writings to fit her German ultranationalist ideology, often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism. 20th-century scholars such as Walter Kaufmann, R.J. Hollingdale, and Georges Bataille defended Nietzsche against this interpretation, and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available. Nietzsche's thought enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1960s and his ideas have since had a profound impact on 20th- and early 21st-century thinkers across philosophy—especially in schools of continental philosophy such as existentialism, postmodernism, and post-structuralism—as well as art, literature, music, poetry, politics, and popular culture.
Nietzsche's work spans philosophical polemics, poetry, cultural criticism, and fiction while displaying a fondness for aphorism and irony. Prominent elements of his philosophy include his radical critique of truth in favour of perspectivism; a genealogical critique of religion and Christian morality and a related theory of master–slave morality; the aesthetic affirmation of life in response to both the "death of God" and the profound crisis of nihilism; the notion of Apollonian and Dionysian forces; and a characterisation of the human subject as the expression of competing wills, collectively understood as the will to power. He also developed influential concepts such as the Übermensch and his doctrine of eternal return. In his later work, he became increasingly preoccupied with the creative powers of the individual to overcome cultural and moral mores in pursuit of new values and aesthetic health. His body of work touched a wide range of topics, including art, philology, history, music, religion, tragedy, culture, and science, and drew inspiration from Greek tragedy as well as figures such as Zoroaster, Arthur Schopenhauer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Richard Wagner, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
After his death, Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of his manuscripts. She edited his unpublished writings to fit her German ultranationalist ideology, often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism. 20th-century scholars such as Walter Kaufmann, R.J. Hollingdale, and Georges Bataille defended Nietzsche against this interpretation, and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available. Nietzsche's thought enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1960s and his ideas have since had a profound impact on 20th- and early 21st-century thinkers across philosophy—especially in schools of continental philosophy such as existentialism, postmodernism, and post-structuralism—as well as art, literature, music, poetry, politics, and popular culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
May 1, 2025
بعد این همه از نیچه خوندن، این اولین باری بود که احساس کردم نیچه نمیخونم...
و وقتی که بیشتر تحقیق کردم، فهمیدم بله! ظاهرا این کتاب اولین اثری بوده که از نیچه چاپ شده و واقعا باید بگم انگار یه آدم دیگه بوده.. و جالبه که نیچه بعدها دیباچهای بر این کتاب نوشته و از خودش انتقاد کرده...
نیچه نخستین، جوونی پرشور و هیجانزدهست که تحت تأثیر شوپنهاور و واگنره. تو این کتاب، درباره ریشههای هنر یونان، مخصوصاً تراژدی حرف میزنه و میگه که این هنر از ترکیب دوتا نیروی متضاد به وجود اومده: یکی آپولونی که نماینده نظم و عقل و زیباییه، یکی هم دیونیسی که نماد شور، مستی، بینظمی و رنجه. نیچه باور داشت که تراژدیهای یونانی با این ترکیب، یهجور راه برای روبهرو شدن با درد زندگی پیدا کرده بودن.
اون موقع نیچه فکر میکرده هنر میتونه آدمو از رنج زندگی نجات بده. موسیقی دیونیسی، مخصوصاً موسیقی واگنر، براش یه جور پناهگاه بوده. اون حتی عقلگرایی سقراط و فرهنگ مدرن رو مقصر میدونسته...
ولی نیچه توی سالهای آخر عمرش، که کتابهایی مثل «چنین گفت زرتشت» رو مینویسه، دیگه اون آدم قبلی نیست. از شوپنهاور دلکنده، از واگنر هم ناامید شده و حالا دیگه نمیخواد از زندگی فرار کنه، بلکه میخواد خود زندگی رو تبدیل به یه اثر هنری کنه.
توی چنین گفت زرتشت، دیگه حرفی از آپولونی و دیونیسی نیست، بلکه حرف از مفاهیم تازهایه. مثل ابر انسان؛ کسی که خودش تصمیم میگیره چه چیزی خوبه یا بد، نه اینکه منتظر ارزشهای آماده دین یا جامعه بمونه.
و وقتی که بیشتر تحقیق کردم، فهمیدم بله! ظاهرا این کتاب اولین اثری بوده که از نیچه چاپ شده و واقعا باید بگم انگار یه آدم دیگه بوده.. و جالبه که نیچه بعدها دیباچهای بر این کتاب نوشته و از خودش انتقاد کرده...
نیچه نخستین، جوونی پرشور و هیجانزدهست که تحت تأثیر شوپنهاور و واگنره. تو این کتاب، درباره ریشههای هنر یونان، مخصوصاً تراژدی حرف میزنه و میگه که این هنر از ترکیب دوتا نیروی متضاد به وجود اومده: یکی آپولونی که نماینده نظم و عقل و زیباییه، یکی هم دیونیسی که نماد شور، مستی، بینظمی و رنجه. نیچه باور داشت که تراژدیهای یونانی با این ترکیب، یهجور راه برای روبهرو شدن با درد زندگی پیدا کرده بودن.
اون موقع نیچه فکر میکرده هنر میتونه آدمو از رنج زندگی نجات بده. موسیقی دیونیسی، مخصوصاً موسیقی واگنر، براش یه جور پناهگاه بوده. اون حتی عقلگرایی سقراط و فرهنگ مدرن رو مقصر میدونسته...
ولی نیچه توی سالهای آخر عمرش، که کتابهایی مثل «چنین گفت زرتشت» رو مینویسه، دیگه اون آدم قبلی نیست. از شوپنهاور دلکنده، از واگنر هم ناامید شده و حالا دیگه نمیخواد از زندگی فرار کنه، بلکه میخواد خود زندگی رو تبدیل به یه اثر هنری کنه.
توی چنین گفت زرتشت، دیگه حرفی از آپولونی و دیونیسی نیست، بلکه حرف از مفاهیم تازهایه. مثل ابر انسان؛ کسی که خودش تصمیم میگیره چه چیزی خوبه یا بد، نه اینکه منتظر ارزشهای آماده دین یا جامعه بمونه.
May 16, 2020
چیزی که ناراحتم میکنه اینه که نیچه اصلاً اشاره نمیکنه به اینکه ایدهی خدای آپولونی و دیونیسوسی رو از هولدرین گرفته.
ولی حالا میتونیم از این ماجرا بگذریم.
زایش تراژدی اولین اثر نیچه است و زمانی نوشته شده که به شدت تحت تأثیر شوپنهاور بوده و طرفدار پروپاقرص موسیقی واگنر. نیچه براین باوره دلیل شادکامی و سعادت یونانیها این بود که علیرغم تلخیها و رنجهای زندگی نه تنها راهی برای غلبه بر پوچی و بیمعنایی زندگی پیدا کردن، بلکه چنان نیرویی داشتن که حتی بر ایرانیان نیز پیروز شدن و دلیلش رو بستر مناسبی میدونه که اجازهی ظهور و زایش تراژدی رو فراهم کرد و این بستر مناسب نتیجهی به هم پیوستن خدای آپولونی - خدای تفرد و مرزکشی و اخلاقیات - و خدای دیونیسوسی - خدای وحدت و مستی و موسیقی - میدونست. به نظرش در تراژدی نیروهای آپولونی و دیونیسوسی به هم میپیوندند. اما بعد که سقراط میآد و خردگرایی رو ترویج میده درواقع روح تراژدی رو میکشه و واسه همینه که نیچه عاشق سوفوکل و آیسخولوسه، ولی از اوریپید بدش میآد. و جالبه که درست برعکس اوریپید تنها سوفیستیه که افلاطون اونقدرا هم باهاش بد نیست.
حالا نیچه معتقده بعد از گذشت قرنها در موسیقی واگنر میتونیم امکان زایش دوبارهی تراژدی رو شاهد باشیم چون اینجاست که دوباره اون نیروی آپولونی و دیونیسوسی به هم پیوستن و قدرت موسیقی واگنر میتونه همون نقش سازندهای رو که تراژدی برای یونانیان داشت، برای آلمانیها هم داشته باشه.
ولی حالا میتونیم از این ماجرا بگذریم.
زایش تراژدی اولین اثر نیچه است و زمانی نوشته شده که به شدت تحت تأثیر شوپنهاور بوده و طرفدار پروپاقرص موسیقی واگنر. نیچه براین باوره دلیل شادکامی و سعادت یونانیها این بود که علیرغم تلخیها و رنجهای زندگی نه تنها راهی برای غلبه بر پوچی و بیمعنایی زندگی پیدا کردن، بلکه چنان نیرویی داشتن که حتی بر ایرانیان نیز پیروز شدن و دلیلش رو بستر مناسبی میدونه که اجازهی ظهور و زایش تراژدی رو فراهم کرد و این بستر مناسب نتیجهی به هم پیوستن خدای آپولونی - خدای تفرد و مرزکشی و اخلاقیات - و خدای دیونیسوسی - خدای وحدت و مستی و موسیقی - میدونست. به نظرش در تراژدی نیروهای آپولونی و دیونیسوسی به هم میپیوندند. اما بعد که سقراط میآد و خردگرایی رو ترویج میده درواقع روح تراژدی رو میکشه و واسه همینه که نیچه عاشق سوفوکل و آیسخولوسه، ولی از اوریپید بدش میآد. و جالبه که درست برعکس اوریپید تنها سوفیستیه که افلاطون اونقدرا هم باهاش بد نیست.
حالا نیچه معتقده بعد از گذشت قرنها در موسیقی واگنر میتونیم امکان زایش دوبارهی تراژدی رو شاهد باشیم چون اینجاست که دوباره اون نیروی آپولونی و دیونیسوسی به هم پیوستن و قدرت موسیقی واگنر میتونه همون نقش سازندهای رو که تراژدی برای یونانیان داشت، برای آلمانیها هم داشته باشه.
August 1, 2022
به نظرم برای شروع نیچه خوانی مناسب هست.
نسبت به آثار دیگهی نیچه قابل فهمتر هست
نسبت به آثار دیگهی نیچه قابل فهمتر هست
April 16, 2020
نیچه در این کتاب آپولون و دیونیزوس رو بهعنوان دو اصل بنیادی و متضاد در هنر و فرهنگ معرفی میکنه. این دو اصل نه تنها نمایندهی دو نیروی متفاوت در طبیعت انسانی هستند، بلکه به عقیدهی نیچه، ترکیب و تضاد این دو نیرو سرچشمهی آثار هنری باشکوه، بهویژه تراژدی یونان باستان بوده.
آپولون نمایندهی عقلانیت، وضوح، نظم و تعادله. این اصل با هنرهای بصری مرتبطه و نماد زیبایی کلاسیک، هارمونی و فردیت محسوب میشه. هنر آپولونی با استفاده از فرم، ساختار و مرزهای مشخص، تجربههای انسانی رو در قالبی ایدهآل و رؤیایی بازنمایی میکنه. نیچه آپولون رو نماد تلاش انسان برای معنا بخشیدن به هرج و مرج و خلق جهانی عقلانی و قابل فهم میدونه.
در مقابل دیونیزوس نمایندهی شور و هیجان، بینظمی، جنون و تجربهی جمعیه. این اصل به احساسات شدید، آزادی بیقید، و اتحاد با نیروهای طبیعی و دیگر انسانها میپردازه. هنر دیونیزوسی شامل موسیقی و جشنهای دیونیزوسیه که فرد رو از خودش رها میکنه و به حالت یگانگی با هستی و طبیعت میرسونه.
نیچه معتقده که هنر یونانی، بهویژه تراژدی، نتیجهی برخورد خلاقانهی این دو نیروی متضاده. تراژدی باستانی از زیبایی آپولونی و شور دیونیزوسی به طور همزمان بهره میبره. این تضاد، هنر تراژیک رو به نوعی زیبایی دردناک تبدیل میکنه، جایی که انسان با درد و رنج زندگی روبهرو میشه ولی در عین حال از شکوهش لذت میبره.
به عقیدهی نیچه فرهنگها و آثار هنری زمانی به اوج میرسند که بتونند تعادل بین این دو نیرو برقرار کنند. بعد اشاره میکنه که فلسفهی سقراط و گرایش به عقلانیت محض، اصل دیونیزوسی رو به حاشیه برد و هنر و فرهنگ از پویایی و عمق خودشون کم شدند.
این اولین کتاب نیچه، به عقیدهی من بعد از زرتشت، زیباترین و بهترین اثرشه و با اینکه کمتر از باقی آثارش بهش پرداخته شده، اما سرشار از ایدههاییه که لایههای عمیق هنر، فرهنگ و انسان رو واکاوی میکنه.
آپولون نمایندهی عقلانیت، وضوح، نظم و تعادله. این اصل با هنرهای بصری مرتبطه و نماد زیبایی کلاسیک، هارمونی و فردیت محسوب میشه. هنر آپولونی با استفاده از فرم، ساختار و مرزهای مشخص، تجربههای انسانی رو در قالبی ایدهآل و رؤیایی بازنمایی میکنه. نیچه آپولون رو نماد تلاش انسان برای معنا بخشیدن به هرج و مرج و خلق جهانی عقلانی و قابل فهم میدونه.
در مقابل دیونیزوس نمایندهی شور و هیجان، بینظمی، جنون و تجربهی جمعیه. این اصل به احساسات شدید، آزادی بیقید، و اتحاد با نیروهای طبیعی و دیگر انسانها میپردازه. هنر دیونیزوسی شامل موسیقی و جشنهای دیونیزوسیه که فرد رو از خودش رها میکنه و به حالت یگانگی با هستی و طبیعت میرسونه.
نیچه معتقده که هنر یونانی، بهویژه تراژدی، نتیجهی برخورد خلاقانهی این دو نیروی متضاده. تراژدی باستانی از زیبایی آپولونی و شور دیونیزوسی به طور همزمان بهره میبره. این تضاد، هنر تراژیک رو به نوعی زیبایی دردناک تبدیل میکنه، جایی که انسان با درد و رنج زندگی روبهرو میشه ولی در عین حال از شکوهش لذت میبره.
به عقیدهی نیچه فرهنگها و آثار هنری زمانی به اوج میرسند که بتونند تعادل بین این دو نیرو برقرار کنند. بعد اشاره میکنه که فلسفهی سقراط و گرایش به عقلانیت محض، اصل دیونیزوسی رو به حاشیه برد و هنر و فرهنگ از پویایی و عمق خودشون کم شدند.
این اولین کتاب نیچه، به عقیدهی من بعد از زرتشت، زیباترین و بهترین اثرشه و با اینکه کمتر از باقی آثارش بهش پرداخته شده، اما سرشار از ایدههاییه که لایههای عمیق هنر، فرهنگ و انسان رو واکاوی میکنه.
November 9, 2022
ترجمهٔ کتاب بسیار عالیست و قدرت زبان نیچه را تا حد زیادی به خواننده منتقل میکند. چه احاطهٔ نیچه بر مسئلهٔ زبان در زمینه و زمانهٔ تألیف این اثر موضوعیت ویژهای دارد. تبیین ایدئولوژی «فرهنگ تراژیک» و نقد آثار آیسخولوس و سوفوکل بر اساس آن برای علاقهمندان به تراژدیهای یونان باستان بسیار جالب توجه خواهد بود.
ترجمهٔ حاضر متشکل از سه متن: «زایش تراژدی از روح موسیقی»،«جهان بینی دیونوسوسی» و «درباره ی حقیقت و دروغ گویی به معنایی نااخلاقی» است. که در متن آخر نیچه ی جوان به همان سبک اغراق آمیز و رگباری خودش به عقل گرایی و اعتماد گونهٔ بشر به کارکرد دانش و آگاهی حمله میکند. و مرزهای عالم مفاهیم و استمداد از عقل را به چالش میکشد.
ترجمهٔ حاضر متشکل از سه متن: «زایش تراژدی از روح موسیقی»،«جهان بینی دیونوسوسی» و «درباره ی حقیقت و دروغ گویی به معنایی نااخلاقی» است. که در متن آخر نیچه ی جوان به همان سبک اغراق آمیز و رگباری خودش به عقل گرایی و اعتماد گونهٔ بشر به کارکرد دانش و آگاهی حمله میکند. و مرزهای عالم مفاهیم و استمداد از عقل را به چالش میکشد.
April 22, 2021
این اثر، مخالفِ نفیِ بوداییِ شوپنهاور از اراده است. نیچه استدلال میکند که زندگی ارزش زندگی کردن با وجودِ سختیهای بسیارش را دارد. نیچه جهان زیست را جهانی هراسآور و وحشتزا می بیند، اما برخلاف شوپنهاور که در نهایت تسلیمشدگی را واکنش انسان در برابر چنین هجومی تشخیص میدهد، نیچه با پی افکندن نیروی اراده و در واقع تسلیمناشدگی فلسفهای دیگر در قبال این جهانِ تراژیک ترسیم میکند: «رازی در جهان هست که زندگی را هراسآور و تراژیک میسازد»؛ اما «به یاری هنر می توان از این هراس و سویۀ تراژیک زندگی عبور کرد.» سنت فلسفی آلمانی از آنجایی که همواره به جامعۀ یونان باستان همچون تجلی جامعهای آرمانی و انسانی و آزاد مینگرد، نیچه نیز در بیان نمونهای عالی و حقیقی از کار هنری به دوران یونان و نیروهای آفرینندۀ آنها نظر دارد. نیچه معتقد است که «یونانیان به خوبی از راز آن دنیای پنهان باخبر بودند. بزرگی و عظمت روحشان در آن بود که تسلیم آن جهان نمیشدند، بلکه با آن میجنگیدند و همین برای آنان به معنای آری گفتن به جهان بود.» نمود این به مبارزهطلبی، جسارت و قدرت، دیونیسوس است. خدایی که اوج حرکت است و دشمن خمودگی، تسلیم و تحقیر: خدای رقص. «دیونیزوس بیپایان است: میرقصد، چون رقصی بیپایان، جسم را در فضا نمایان میکند. مکان را ردّ میکند و او ذات موسیقی است.» حالت موسیقایی، حالتی قالبی است که بر جان هنرمند در هنگامِ آفرینش هنری سایه میافکند. هنرمند با روحی دیونیسوسی، جرأت نه گفتن به شرایط موجود و امّا آری گفتن برای جنگ با زندگی خشن را دارد. در اینجاست که میتوان هنرمند را معادلی برای جانِ آزاده دانست.
April 28, 2009
This was my first exposure to Nietzsche. I really enjoyed it. He really scared me with his preface (written 16 years after original publication). He claimed his book was poorly written and developed. I thoroughly enjoyed it though. I didn't read the other 2 short writings, but I read all of "The Birth of Tragedy." The timing is perfect. Greek tragedy is fresh in my mind from my Greek course in the fall, and I'm just about to teach Greek tragedy in my World Lit class!
When I read the very first page, I thought, "What?!?" Then I re-read it and it suddenly clicked. After that, I was completely absorbed by his writing.
I've fallen in love with the concept he has coined "metaphysical solace."
I also have more ideas abounding about "Angel" as Greek Tragedy....
When I read the very first page, I thought, "What?!?" Then I re-read it and it suddenly clicked. After that, I was completely absorbed by his writing.
I've fallen in love with the concept he has coined "metaphysical solace."
I also have more ideas abounding about "Angel" as Greek Tragedy....
September 19, 2024
I enjoyed this book quite a bit. There were many moments where I was just continuously amazed with how much of a genius Nietzsche is as a philosopher and writer…some may even say a poet(?) The only part that got me, ironically, was him talking about opera. I get it! We’re talking about Wagner…but seriously it killed the flow that he was on. I do think he makes a good argument with the parallels between “Socratic culture” and the music of opera or “culture of” but maybe it was just the content that felt a little dull. I mean, to be fair he is talking about the “theoretical man” it isn’t the most thrilling subject.
The only way I felt like I could even attempt to summarize this book was by saying “it’s like I need a whole book about this book to tell you what this book is about” so just, read it yourself. Every point Nietzsche makes feels infinitely important for x amount of reasons leaving any act of synthesis to cease. I would say “An Attempt and Self-Criticism” to chapters 1-18 of “The Birth of Tragedy…Foreword to Richard Wagner” are fantastic, then, unfortunately, I found the book to drag on a little bit till the end. Oh well, everyone’s a critic, even Nietzsche about his own work.
The only way I felt like I could even attempt to summarize this book was by saying “it’s like I need a whole book about this book to tell you what this book is about” so just, read it yourself. Every point Nietzsche makes feels infinitely important for x amount of reasons leaving any act of synthesis to cease. I would say “An Attempt and Self-Criticism” to chapters 1-18 of “The Birth of Tragedy…Foreword to Richard Wagner” are fantastic, then, unfortunately, I found the book to drag on a little bit till the end. Oh well, everyone’s a critic, even Nietzsche about his own work.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 21, 2022
Got to love Nietzsche the Bietzsche. In this book, Nietzsche offers a critique of Platonic virtue, Christian virtue, and Socratic reason. He argues that instead of solely embracing scientific reason and striving toward high and mighty values, we should embrace the "Dionysian" or pain-loving sides of ourselves. We should appreciate the unpredictability of the world and the intrinsic value of sadistic suffering.
This is to some extent, a nice argument. There is more to life than well-reasoned happiness. However, Nietzsche's argument is a bit too angsty. I'm not sure that we can solve all our problems by watching tragedies and listening to "Dionysiac" music. Although suffering is an inherent part of the human experience, I think there still exists value in our relationships with other people and our appreciation of the world around. Yes, Nietzsche argues that we should seek to find a balance between the "Apollonion" and the "Dionysiac," but I would have appreciated a greater articulation of how we should actually live this balance and appreciate more than tragic art.
Still, a nice book. Always good to suffer a bit.
This is to some extent, a nice argument. There is more to life than well-reasoned happiness. However, Nietzsche's argument is a bit too angsty. I'm not sure that we can solve all our problems by watching tragedies and listening to "Dionysiac" music. Although suffering is an inherent part of the human experience, I think there still exists value in our relationships with other people and our appreciation of the world around. Yes, Nietzsche argues that we should seek to find a balance between the "Apollonion" and the "Dionysiac," but I would have appreciated a greater articulation of how we should actually live this balance and appreciate more than tragic art.
Still, a nice book. Always good to suffer a bit.
October 17, 2018
Certainly not a historiographical account of tragedy, nor a purely philological or philosophical work on the topic, Nietzsche's essay on the birth of tragedy takes a unique approximation.
Rather than making a single argumentative point or grounding a univocal thesis, Nietzsche weaves a complicated tapestry of images. It is only at the very end of the essay that one recognises the final result: the German Geist. As it may well have happened in Greek theatre, after a magnificent representation, characters lose their mask to reveal real actors below. Here, the characters that Nietzsche draws are the Hellenes, and the subjacent actor is the German Volk and its genius. It's difficult not to feel somewhat betrayed by the title, as one discovers that the real protagonists here are Wagner, Schopenhauer and Kant, instead of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.
Still, Nietzsche's beautiful contribution to literature on the tragic through the dialectical opposition of the Dionysiac and the Apolline constitutes undoubtedly a work of genius.
Rather than making a single argumentative point or grounding a univocal thesis, Nietzsche weaves a complicated tapestry of images. It is only at the very end of the essay that one recognises the final result: the German Geist. As it may well have happened in Greek theatre, after a magnificent representation, characters lose their mask to reveal real actors below. Here, the characters that Nietzsche draws are the Hellenes, and the subjacent actor is the German Volk and its genius. It's difficult not to feel somewhat betrayed by the title, as one discovers that the real protagonists here are Wagner, Schopenhauer and Kant, instead of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.
Still, Nietzsche's beautiful contribution to literature on the tragic through the dialectical opposition of the Dionysiac and the Apolline constitutes undoubtedly a work of genius.
August 21, 2017
A genuinely meta-physical exposition of art manifested by art that knows itself as such.
July 18, 2026
آپولون (خدای خورشید و نظم) نماد رویا، زیبایی، فردیت، اعتدال، حدومرز و آرامش است. هنر آپولونی مثل مجسمهسازی و حماسهسرایی، تصاویری زیبا و مشخص از انسانها و جهان ارائه میدهد و به ما کمک میکند تا هویت فردی خود را حفظ کنیم.
دیونیزوس (خدای مستی و شور) نماد بیخودی، رقص، موسیقی، افراط، شکستن مرزها و یکیشدن با طبیعت است. هنر دیونیسوسی مثل موسیقی و رقصهای دستهجمعی، حس یکیشدن با کل هستی و فراموشی خود را به ما میدهد.
این دو نیرو در ذات انسان و طبیعت وجود دارند و در تضاد با یکدیگرند، اما بهترین آثار هنری وقتی پدید میآیند که این دو با هم تلفیق شوند.
یونانیهای باستان برخلاف ظاهر شاد و خوشبینانهشان، بهشدت از رنج و پوچی هستی آگاه بودند (حکمت سیلنوس: «بهترین چیز برای انسان بهدنیا نیامدن است و دومین بهترین چیز، زود مردن»). اما تراژدی به آنها امکان میداد تا با آفریدن زیبایی از دل رنج، این حقیقت تلخ را تحمل کنند و حتی از آن لذت ببرند. بهعبارت دیگر، تراژدی جهان را بهعنوان یک پدیدهی زیباشناختی توجیه میکرد و به زندگی معنا میبخشید.
تراژدی یونانی با آمدن سقراط رو به زوال رفت. سقراط نماد خوشبینیِ عقلگرا و اعتقاد به این است که دانش و منطق میتوانند همهی مشکلات بشر را حل کنند. او هنر را «فریب» میدانست و بهجای آن، علم، اخلاق و استدلال را جایگزین کرد. این نگاه، نیروی دیونیسوسی را از تئاتر گرفت و تراژدی را به نمایشی سطحی و اخلاقی تبدیل کرد که در آن «عدالت شاعرانه» جای «تسلیِ متافیزیکی» را گرفت.
فرهنگ مدرن (فرهنگِ سقراطی-اسکندرانی) نیز چنین خوشبینیِ علمیزدایی دارد و بهجای هنرِ اصیل، به دنبال دانش و پیشرفتِ مادی است، اما در نهایت به بحران و پوچی میرسد.
حقیقت چیزی نیست جز لشگری سیار از استعارهها و مجازها که فراموش کردهایم استعاره هستند. پس علم و اخلاق، بر پایهی «فراموشیِ ماهیتِ استعاریِ زبان» بنا شدهاند. انسانِ مدرن که خود را «واقعگرا» میداند، در واقع در عمیقترین لایهی ممکن، یک دروغگویِ ناخودآگاه است.
پس «حقیقتِ محض» (چیز-در-خود) نهتنها دستنیافتنی است، بلکه اگر بهطور کامل دیده شود، انسان را میکُشد یا به تهوعی مطلق میکشاند. تراژدی یک «دروغِ نجاتبخش» است، اما نه برای اینکه ما را گول بزند، بلکه برای اینکه ما را زنده نگه دارد.
سقراط در زندان، در آستانهی مرگ، کابوسی مکرر میبیند که به او میگوید: «ای سقراط، موسیقی بساز!» سقراط که تمام عمرش هنر را «فریب» میدانست، ناگهان متوجهِ خلأِ مهلکی در عقلِ صرف میشود. نیچه آرمانِ نهایی را «سقراطِ موسیقینواز» مینامد؛ یعنی کسی که اوجِ دانشِ نظری را دارد، اما میداند که علم به دیوارِ بنیادینِ هستی میخورد و در همان لحظه، تن به جادوی اسطوره و هنر میدهد. این یعنی علم، در نهایتِ خود، محکوم به تبدیلشدن به هنر است.
هنرِ اصیل، کارش تقلید از طبیعت (طبق تعریفِ ارسطویی) نیست. کارِ آن، «تکمیلِ متافیزیکیِ طبیعت» است. یعنی هنرمندِ اصیل، واقعیتِ هرزه و رنجبارِ هستی را میگیرد و با «فریبِ رهاییبخشِ زیبایی» چنان آن را دگرگون میکند که انسان بتواند به زندگی «آری» بگوید. جملهی مشهور کتاب اینجاست: «تنها بهعنوان یک پدیدهی زیباشناختی، جهان و هستی توجیهپذیر است.»
بهبیانِ دیگر، هنرِ اصیل، آن «رستگاریبخش» است که به ما اجازه میدهد به ورطهی وحشتانگیزِ هستی خیره شویم، بدون آنکه از وحشت بمیریم یا به انکارِ زندگی (مثل بوداییها) پناه ببریم.
هنرِ اصیل، اسطورهزا است. اسطوره نه یک افسانهی کهنه، بلکه افقِ بستهی معنابخش است که تمامِ تجربههای یک قوم را در خود جای میدهد و به آن وحدت و هویت میبخشد. فرهنگِ اصیل، افقی اسطورهای دارد که جوانان در آن رشد میکنند و بزرگسالان، زندگیشان را با آن تفسیر میکنند.
شاید عمیقترین ویژگیِ هنرِ اصیل، «بیگناهیِ فراتر از اخلاق» آن باشد. نیچه میگوید خدایِ هنرمندی که پشتِ هنرِ اصیل است، یک «خدایِ بیپروا و غیراخلاقی» است که از ساختن و ویران کردن، از نیکی و بدی، به یک اندازه لذت میبرد. هنرِ اصیل، سعی نمیکند رنج را توجیهِ اخلاقی کند (مثل عدالتِ الهی در مسیحیت). بلکه رنج را خودِ مادهی اصلیِ بازیِ کیهانی میداند.
هنرِ اصیل، از «فراوانیِ سرشارِ نیروی زندگی» میجوشد، نه از فقر و درماندگی. یونانیانِ عصرِ تراژدی، آنقدر قوی و سالم بودند که میتوانستند وحشتناکترین واقعیتها را به تماشا بنشینند و باز هم شاد باشند (بدبینیِ قوی).
در مقابل، هنرِ غیراصیل (مدرن) اسطوره را میکُشد و انسان را به «سرگردانیِ تاریخی» و «گرسنگیِ دائمی برای گردآوریِ فرهنگهای بیگانه» مبتلا میکند.
چه هنری اصیل نیست؟
هنری که در خدمتِ اخلاق و عقل باشد: نمایشی که به «عدالت شاعرانه» ختم شود یا بخواهد به تماشاگر درسِ زندگی بدهد، هرگز اصیل نیست.
هنری که موسیقی را خدمتگزارِ کلمه کند: در هنرِ اصیل، موسیقی خودِ ارادهی هستی است و تصویر و کلمه، تنها «سایهای» از آن هستند. اما در اپرا، موسیقی برای خوشآیندِ گوشِ تماشاگرِ بیذوق، به تقلیدِ صداهای طبیعت (توفان، جنگ) تنزل مییابد و «نقاشیِ صوتی» میشود.
هنری که به جای غریزه و شور، با نقد و منطق سر و کار دارد: تماشاگرِ هنرِ اصیل، یک «ناقدِ» خونسرد نیست؛ بلکه کسی است که در جادویِ صحنه حل میشود و خود را با گروههای کر یکی میکند.
تماشاگری که در سالنِ نمایش نشسته، ناخودآگاه در سه لایهی تودرتو از فریب غرق شده است: نخست، فریبِ زندگیِ عادی را میخورد و آن را «جهانِ راستین» میپندارد. دوم، زیرِ جادوی شورِ دیونیسوسی، هویتِ شخصیِ خود را از یاد میبرد و در دریایِ یکیشدگی حل میشود. سوم، در گیر و دارِ نمایشِ آپولونی روی صحنه، خیال میکند که آن قهرمانان، وجودهایی جدا از او هستند.
اما چرا این همه فریب؟ راز در این است که «کنهٔ محضِ هستی» - یعنی همان حقیقتِ لخت و بیپرده - نه تنها دستیافتنی نیست، بلکه اگر یکباره چشمانِ ما به روی آن گشوده شود، آن چنان تابشی سوزان و پرتگاهی هراسانگیز دارد که جانِ ما را میگیرد یا به تهوعی کشنده دچارمان میکند. به همین دلیل، تراژدی یک «دروغِ رستگارکننده» است؛ نه آن دروغِ پستِ حیلهگرانه که ما را گول بزند، بلکه آن فریبِ والا و شفقتآمیز که همچون سپری نرم، ما را در برابر آفتابِ سوزانِ حقیقت نگاه میدارد تا بتوانیم شهامتِ زیستن را در خود زنده نگه داریم. تنها یونانیانِ عصرِ تراژدی بودند که این بازیِ پرخطر را به خوبی فهمیدند؛ آنان آنچنان نیرومند و تندرست بودند که میتوانستند تا لبِ پرتگاهِ حقیقت بروند، در وحشتِ آن خیره شوند، و باز با یاریِ همین فریبِ زیبا به زندگی بازگردند - بدون آنکه تسلیمِ انکارِ هستی شوند یا به پوچیِ مطلق دچار آیند. این همان رازِ ماندگاریِ فرهنگِ اصیل است: زیستن در آغوشِ میانهای که نه سادهلوحیِ نادانی است و نه تباهیِ داناییِ محض.
در انتها یک تزِ تاریخی-متافیزیکیِ شگفتانگیز مطرح میکند: تمدنها یا به سمتِ بودیسمِ هندی میروند (انکارِ اراده و فرار از هستی) یا به سمت امپراتوریِ روم (تسخیرِ بیپایانِ جهان مادی). اما یونانیان «راهِ سوم» را یافتند: تراژدی. تراژدی میانِ این دو افراط ایستاد؛ هم سیاست و پیکار (نشانهی آپولونیِ تشکیلدهندهی دولت) را داشت، هم جوششِ دیونیسوسیِ رهاییبخش را؛ اما با قدرتِ اسطوره و موسیقی، مانع از آن شد که یونانیها در عرفانِ شرقی حل شوند یا در جهانگشاییِ خشکِ رومی غرق شوند. این «میانهی طلایی» عمیقترین رازِ بقایِ فرهنگِ اصیل است.
یک سو، سبک زندگیِ شرقی قرار دارد که میگوید: «این دنیا پر از رنج است، پس باید از آن فرار کرد و به فکرِ رهایی بود.» (این همان حالتی است که انسان از زندگی دست میکشد.) سوی دیگر، سبک زندگیِ رومی قرار دارد که میگوید: «تنها قدرت و کشورگشایی و ثروت اهمیت دارد.» (این همان حالتی است که انسان فقط به فکرِ دنیا و مادیات است.) تراژدی میانِ این دو راه میایستد. یونانیانِ عصرِ تراژدی، هم به زندگی و سیاست و پیکار اهمیت میدادند (مثل رومیان)، و هم به رازهای شورانگیزِ هستی و رهایی از خود میپرداختند (مثل شرقیان). اما با کمکِ اسطوره و موسیقی، تعادل را نگه داشتند: نه آنقدر دنیاگرا شدند که دل از معنا بکنند، و نه آنقدر عرفانی شدند که از زندگیِ زمینی بگریزند.
تراژدی به انسان یاد داد که هم میتواند عاشقِ زندگی باشد، هم از رنجهایش نترسد. نه مثلِ آنکه همهچیز را به بادِ فراموشی بسپارد، و نه مثلِ آنکه فقط به فکرِ پول و قدرت باشد. تراژدی گفت: «زندگی را با همهی تلخی و شیرینیاش بپذیر، و این پذیرش را با هنر و زیبایی، قابلِ تحمل کن.»
عمیقترین پیامِ کتاب این است که ما هرگز به «حقیقت» دست نمییابیم و نباید هم دست یابیم. تنها راهِ زیستن، ساختنِ «سایههای» زیبا بر فرازِ ورطهی تاریکِ هستی است. این نه یک نظریهی هنری، که یک «متافیزیکِ هنرمندانه» (Artisten-Metaphysik) است که در آن، خدا مرده است، اخلاق یک توهمِ سودمند است و تنها چیزی که باقی میماند، بازیِ شجاعانهی آفرینش و نابودی در برابر چشمانِ حیرتزدهی انسانِ تراژیک است.
————————————————————————--
این رو خیلی کوتاه تر بنویس و ساده فهم نگهش دار
تراژدی نمیخواهد تماشاگر را غمگین کند یا به او درسِ اخلاق بدهد. کارِ تراژدی این است که رنجِ زندگی را آنچنان زیبا و باشکوه نشان دهد که انسان بتواند آن را تحمل کند و باز هم زندگی را دوست داشته باشد.
تماشاگر در تراژدی، قهرمان را میبیند که از پا درمیآید، اما در همان لحظه، حس میکند که آن قهرمان فقط یک «سایه» است و اصلِ هستی، جاودانه و شکستناپذیر است. پس او در عینِ دیدنِ نابودی، به وجد میرسد و از این راز لذت میبرد که زندگی، حتی با تمامِ رنجهایش، ارزشِ زیستن دارد.
تراژدی یعنی نمایشِ دردناکترین لحظاتِ زندگی، اما به گونهای که تماشاگر بعد از دیدنش، نه افسرده، بلکه نیرومندتر و شادتر از سالن بیرون بیاید. چون فهمیده که رنج، بخشی از بازیِ بزرگِ هستی است و انسانِ تراژیک، کسی است که میتواند با آغوشِ باز، هم زیبایی را بپذیرد و هم وحشت را.
دیونیزوس (خدای مستی و شور) نماد بیخودی، رقص، موسیقی، افراط، شکستن مرزها و یکیشدن با طبیعت است. هنر دیونیسوسی مثل موسیقی و رقصهای دستهجمعی، حس یکیشدن با کل هستی و فراموشی خود را به ما میدهد.
این دو نیرو در ذات انسان و طبیعت وجود دارند و در تضاد با یکدیگرند، اما بهترین آثار هنری وقتی پدید میآیند که این دو با هم تلفیق شوند.
یونانیهای باستان برخلاف ظاهر شاد و خوشبینانهشان، بهشدت از رنج و پوچی هستی آگاه بودند (حکمت سیلنوس: «بهترین چیز برای انسان بهدنیا نیامدن است و دومین بهترین چیز، زود مردن»). اما تراژدی به آنها امکان میداد تا با آفریدن زیبایی از دل رنج، این حقیقت تلخ را تحمل کنند و حتی از آن لذت ببرند. بهعبارت دیگر، تراژدی جهان را بهعنوان یک پدیدهی زیباشناختی توجیه میکرد و به زندگی معنا میبخشید.
تراژدی یونانی با آمدن سقراط رو به زوال رفت. سقراط نماد خوشبینیِ عقلگرا و اعتقاد به این است که دانش و منطق میتوانند همهی مشکلات بشر را حل کنند. او هنر را «فریب» میدانست و بهجای آن، علم، اخلاق و استدلال را جایگزین کرد. این نگاه، نیروی دیونیسوسی را از تئاتر گرفت و تراژدی را به نمایشی سطحی و اخلاقی تبدیل کرد که در آن «عدالت شاعرانه» جای «تسلیِ متافیزیکی» را گرفت.
فرهنگ مدرن (فرهنگِ سقراطی-اسکندرانی) نیز چنین خوشبینیِ علمیزدایی دارد و بهجای هنرِ اصیل، به دنبال دانش و پیشرفتِ مادی است، اما در نهایت به بحران و پوچی میرسد.
حقیقت چیزی نیست جز لشگری سیار از استعارهها و مجازها که فراموش کردهایم استعاره هستند. پس علم و اخلاق، بر پایهی «فراموشیِ ماهیتِ استعاریِ زبان» بنا شدهاند. انسانِ مدرن که خود را «واقعگرا» میداند، در واقع در عمیقترین لایهی ممکن، یک دروغگویِ ناخودآگاه است.
پس «حقیقتِ محض» (چیز-در-خود) نهتنها دستنیافتنی است، بلکه اگر بهطور کامل دیده شود، انسان را میکُشد یا به تهوعی مطلق میکشاند. تراژدی یک «دروغِ نجاتبخش» است، اما نه برای اینکه ما را گول بزند، بلکه برای اینکه ما را زنده نگه دارد.
سقراط در زندان، در آستانهی مرگ، کابوسی مکرر میبیند که به او میگوید: «ای سقراط، موسیقی بساز!» سقراط که تمام عمرش هنر را «فریب» میدانست، ناگهان متوجهِ خلأِ مهلکی در عقلِ صرف میشود. نیچه آرمانِ نهایی را «سقراطِ موسیقینواز» مینامد؛ یعنی کسی که اوجِ دانشِ نظری را دارد، اما میداند که علم به دیوارِ بنیادینِ هستی میخورد و در همان لحظه، تن به جادوی اسطوره و هنر میدهد. این یعنی علم، در نهایتِ خود، محکوم به تبدیلشدن به هنر است.
هنرِ اصیل، کارش تقلید از طبیعت (طبق تعریفِ ارسطویی) نیست. کارِ آن، «تکمیلِ متافیزیکیِ طبیعت» است. یعنی هنرمندِ اصیل، واقعیتِ هرزه و رنجبارِ هستی را میگیرد و با «فریبِ رهاییبخشِ زیبایی» چنان آن را دگرگون میکند که انسان بتواند به زندگی «آری» بگوید. جملهی مشهور کتاب اینجاست: «تنها بهعنوان یک پدیدهی زیباشناختی، جهان و هستی توجیهپذیر است.»
بهبیانِ دیگر، هنرِ اصیل، آن «رستگاریبخش» است که به ما اجازه میدهد به ورطهی وحشتانگیزِ هستی خیره شویم، بدون آنکه از وحشت بمیریم یا به انکارِ زندگی (مثل بوداییها) پناه ببریم.
هنرِ اصیل، اسطورهزا است. اسطوره نه یک افسانهی کهنه، بلکه افقِ بستهی معنابخش است که تمامِ تجربههای یک قوم را در خود جای میدهد و به آن وحدت و هویت میبخشد. فرهنگِ اصیل، افقی اسطورهای دارد که جوانان در آن رشد میکنند و بزرگسالان، زندگیشان را با آن تفسیر میکنند.
شاید عمیقترین ویژگیِ هنرِ اصیل، «بیگناهیِ فراتر از اخلاق» آن باشد. نیچه میگوید خدایِ هنرمندی که پشتِ هنرِ اصیل است، یک «خدایِ بیپروا و غیراخلاقی» است که از ساختن و ویران کردن، از نیکی و بدی، به یک اندازه لذت میبرد. هنرِ اصیل، سعی نمیکند رنج را توجیهِ اخلاقی کند (مثل عدالتِ الهی در مسیحیت). بلکه رنج را خودِ مادهی اصلیِ بازیِ کیهانی میداند.
هنرِ اصیل، از «فراوانیِ سرشارِ نیروی زندگی» میجوشد، نه از فقر و درماندگی. یونانیانِ عصرِ تراژدی، آنقدر قوی و سالم بودند که میتوانستند وحشتناکترین واقعیتها را به تماشا بنشینند و باز هم شاد باشند (بدبینیِ قوی).
در مقابل، هنرِ غیراصیل (مدرن) اسطوره را میکُشد و انسان را به «سرگردانیِ تاریخی» و «گرسنگیِ دائمی برای گردآوریِ فرهنگهای بیگانه» مبتلا میکند.
چه هنری اصیل نیست؟
هنری که در خدمتِ اخلاق و عقل باشد: نمایشی که به «عدالت شاعرانه» ختم شود یا بخواهد به تماشاگر درسِ زندگی بدهد، هرگز اصیل نیست.
هنری که موسیقی را خدمتگزارِ کلمه کند: در هنرِ اصیل، موسیقی خودِ ارادهی هستی است و تصویر و کلمه، تنها «سایهای» از آن هستند. اما در اپرا، موسیقی برای خوشآیندِ گوشِ تماشاگرِ بیذوق، به تقلیدِ صداهای طبیعت (توفان، جنگ) تنزل مییابد و «نقاشیِ صوتی» میشود.
هنری که به جای غریزه و شور، با نقد و منطق سر و کار دارد: تماشاگرِ هنرِ اصیل، یک «ناقدِ» خونسرد نیست؛ بلکه کسی است که در جادویِ صحنه حل میشود و خود را با گروههای کر یکی میکند.
تماشاگری که در سالنِ نمایش نشسته، ناخودآگاه در سه لایهی تودرتو از فریب غرق شده است: نخست، فریبِ زندگیِ عادی را میخورد و آن را «جهانِ راستین» میپندارد. دوم، زیرِ جادوی شورِ دیونیسوسی، هویتِ شخصیِ خود را از یاد میبرد و در دریایِ یکیشدگی حل میشود. سوم، در گیر و دارِ نمایشِ آپولونی روی صحنه، خیال میکند که آن قهرمانان، وجودهایی جدا از او هستند.
اما چرا این همه فریب؟ راز در این است که «کنهٔ محضِ هستی» - یعنی همان حقیقتِ لخت و بیپرده - نه تنها دستیافتنی نیست، بلکه اگر یکباره چشمانِ ما به روی آن گشوده شود، آن چنان تابشی سوزان و پرتگاهی هراسانگیز دارد که جانِ ما را میگیرد یا به تهوعی کشنده دچارمان میکند. به همین دلیل، تراژدی یک «دروغِ رستگارکننده» است؛ نه آن دروغِ پستِ حیلهگرانه که ما را گول بزند، بلکه آن فریبِ والا و شفقتآمیز که همچون سپری نرم، ما را در برابر آفتابِ سوزانِ حقیقت نگاه میدارد تا بتوانیم شهامتِ زیستن را در خود زنده نگه داریم. تنها یونانیانِ عصرِ تراژدی بودند که این بازیِ پرخطر را به خوبی فهمیدند؛ آنان آنچنان نیرومند و تندرست بودند که میتوانستند تا لبِ پرتگاهِ حقیقت بروند، در وحشتِ آن خیره شوند، و باز با یاریِ همین فریبِ زیبا به زندگی بازگردند - بدون آنکه تسلیمِ انکارِ هستی شوند یا به پوچیِ مطلق دچار آیند. این همان رازِ ماندگاریِ فرهنگِ اصیل است: زیستن در آغوشِ میانهای که نه سادهلوحیِ نادانی است و نه تباهیِ داناییِ محض.
در انتها یک تزِ تاریخی-متافیزیکیِ شگفتانگیز مطرح میکند: تمدنها یا به سمتِ بودیسمِ هندی میروند (انکارِ اراده و فرار از هستی) یا به سمت امپراتوریِ روم (تسخیرِ بیپایانِ جهان مادی). اما یونانیان «راهِ سوم» را یافتند: تراژدی. تراژدی میانِ این دو افراط ایستاد؛ هم سیاست و پیکار (نشانهی آپولونیِ تشکیلدهندهی دولت) را داشت، هم جوششِ دیونیسوسیِ رهاییبخش را؛ اما با قدرتِ اسطوره و موسیقی، مانع از آن شد که یونانیها در عرفانِ شرقی حل شوند یا در جهانگشاییِ خشکِ رومی غرق شوند. این «میانهی طلایی» عمیقترین رازِ بقایِ فرهنگِ اصیل است.
یک سو، سبک زندگیِ شرقی قرار دارد که میگوید: «این دنیا پر از رنج است، پس باید از آن فرار کرد و به فکرِ رهایی بود.» (این همان حالتی است که انسان از زندگی دست میکشد.) سوی دیگر، سبک زندگیِ رومی قرار دارد که میگوید: «تنها قدرت و کشورگشایی و ثروت اهمیت دارد.» (این همان حالتی است که انسان فقط به فکرِ دنیا و مادیات است.) تراژدی میانِ این دو راه میایستد. یونانیانِ عصرِ تراژدی، هم به زندگی و سیاست و پیکار اهمیت میدادند (مثل رومیان)، و هم به رازهای شورانگیزِ هستی و رهایی از خود میپرداختند (مثل شرقیان). اما با کمکِ اسطوره و موسیقی، تعادل را نگه داشتند: نه آنقدر دنیاگرا شدند که دل از معنا بکنند، و نه آنقدر عرفانی شدند که از زندگیِ زمینی بگریزند.
تراژدی به انسان یاد داد که هم میتواند عاشقِ زندگی باشد، هم از رنجهایش نترسد. نه مثلِ آنکه همهچیز را به بادِ فراموشی بسپارد، و نه مثلِ آنکه فقط به فکرِ پول و قدرت باشد. تراژدی گفت: «زندگی را با همهی تلخی و شیرینیاش بپذیر، و این پذیرش را با هنر و زیبایی، قابلِ تحمل کن.»
عمیقترین پیامِ کتاب این است که ما هرگز به «حقیقت» دست نمییابیم و نباید هم دست یابیم. تنها راهِ زیستن، ساختنِ «سایههای» زیبا بر فرازِ ورطهی تاریکِ هستی است. این نه یک نظریهی هنری، که یک «متافیزیکِ هنرمندانه» (Artisten-Metaphysik) است که در آن، خدا مرده است، اخلاق یک توهمِ سودمند است و تنها چیزی که باقی میماند، بازیِ شجاعانهی آفرینش و نابودی در برابر چشمانِ حیرتزدهی انسانِ تراژیک است.
————————————————————————--
این رو خیلی کوتاه تر بنویس و ساده فهم نگهش دار
تراژدی نمیخواهد تماشاگر را غمگین کند یا به او درسِ اخلاق بدهد. کارِ تراژدی این است که رنجِ زندگی را آنچنان زیبا و باشکوه نشان دهد که انسان بتواند آن را تحمل کند و باز هم زندگی را دوست داشته باشد.
تماشاگر در تراژدی، قهرمان را میبیند که از پا درمیآید، اما در همان لحظه، حس میکند که آن قهرمان فقط یک «سایه» است و اصلِ هستی، جاودانه و شکستناپذیر است. پس او در عینِ دیدنِ نابودی، به وجد میرسد و از این راز لذت میبرد که زندگی، حتی با تمامِ رنجهایش، ارزشِ زیستن دارد.
تراژدی یعنی نمایشِ دردناکترین لحظاتِ زندگی، اما به گونهای که تماشاگر بعد از دیدنش، نه افسرده، بلکه نیرومندتر و شادتر از سالن بیرون بیاید. چون فهمیده که رنج، بخشی از بازیِ بزرگِ هستی است و انسانِ تراژیک، کسی است که میتواند با آغوشِ باز، هم زیبایی را بپذیرد و هم وحشت را.
November 30, 2016
Before I start the review, I just want to say that it felt great to read Nietzsche after a long time!
'Birth of Tragedy,' written in 1871, is Nietzsche's first book, that I think should have been titled 'Rebirth of Tragedy.' It is also a critic of reason, the scientific, the theoretic, and the Socratic; and is an ode to music, specifically Wagner.
Nietzsche wants humanity to be united again and break away from the concept of individualization. For this to happen, the Apollonian and the Dionysian have to merge-which he thinks can be found in folk songs, tragedy, tragic myth, and Wagnerian symphonies. He believes that the Germans are igniting a new art form that comes from the womb of the Dionysian and appears in images from the Apollonian. He considers music to be the highest form of art as it can encompass something beyond worldly appearances-a hidden reality. In the world of images, music appears as Will-inherently unaesthetic, though it is not Will. Music does not need lyrics and images though it can tolerate them. The lyric poet requires passion to have the Will appear in music. The listener of this music feels a metaphysical solace-an elevated omniscience and ability to penetrate to the interior of things.
Nietzsche also makes use of the philosophical concepts from Schopenhauer and Schiller, which would be a precursor for reading this book.
'Birth of Tragedy,' written in 1871, is Nietzsche's first book, that I think should have been titled 'Rebirth of Tragedy.' It is also a critic of reason, the scientific, the theoretic, and the Socratic; and is an ode to music, specifically Wagner.
Nietzsche wants humanity to be united again and break away from the concept of individualization. For this to happen, the Apollonian and the Dionysian have to merge-which he thinks can be found in folk songs, tragedy, tragic myth, and Wagnerian symphonies. He believes that the Germans are igniting a new art form that comes from the womb of the Dionysian and appears in images from the Apollonian. He considers music to be the highest form of art as it can encompass something beyond worldly appearances-a hidden reality. In the world of images, music appears as Will-inherently unaesthetic, though it is not Will. Music does not need lyrics and images though it can tolerate them. The lyric poet requires passion to have the Will appear in music. The listener of this music feels a metaphysical solace-an elevated omniscience and ability to penetrate to the interior of things.
Nietzsche also makes use of the philosophical concepts from Schopenhauer and Schiller, which would be a precursor for reading this book.
August 24, 2010
The Greeks, Nietzsche argues, were in the period of their greatest achievements thoroughly pessimistic but found in artistic creativity the only possible justification for existence. An interesting premise, to say the least: art and its creation the reason for living. Anyway, as a result of this belief they produced Greek tragedy, what many consider the noblest affirmation of human life. Nietzsche goes on to argue that the later development of Greek culture, particularly the influence of Socrates and Euripides, was not, as so many modern classicists have maintained, the high point of Greek achievement, but a significant decline, the onset of a sickness from which the world is still suffering (a significant symptom of which is our preoccupation with morality, especially Christian morality and our faith in scientific scholarship). I find so much within his writing that I can contradict but I nevertheless respect his writing and find it well worth the time.
April 17, 2013
The Birth of Tragedy was Nietzsche's first published book, and it shows. It is passionate, flamboyant, and highly creative, but it lacks structure. His arguments are not always well supported (particularly his conjectures about ancient Greek music) but his core ideas still come alive. The Apolline-Dionysian dichotomy is a powerful distinction, and one that still reverberates; the tension between mythology/theology and science is alive and well; and his aesthetic critique of music is fascinating. But I'm not sure how all these ideas hang together...
The book reads a bit like a very good first draft, like something with a lot of potential but which is ultimately unrefined. It reads like a youthful first attempt, which is what it was.
The book reads a bit like a very good first draft, like something with a lot of potential but which is ultimately unrefined. It reads like a youthful first attempt, which is what it was.
April 9, 2019
I repeat: I find it an impossible book today. I declare that it is badly written, clumsy, embarrassing, with a rage for imagery and confused in its imagery, emotional, here and there sugary to the point of effeminacy, uneven in pace, lacing the will to logical cleanliness, very convinced and therefore too arrogant to prove its assertions, mistrustful even of the propriety of proving things, a book for the initiated, ‘music’ for those who baptised in the name of music, who, from the very beginning, are linked to one another by shared, rare experiences of art, a sign by which blood-relations in artibus could recognise one another—an arrogant and wildly enthusiastic book which, from the outset, shuts itself off from the profane vulgus of the ‘educated’ even more than from the ‘common people’, how also one which, as its effect proved and continues to prove, knows well enough how to seek out its fellow-enthusiasts and to entice them on to new, secret paths and places to dance. —An Attempt at Self-Criticism
__________
Introduction - Raymond Geuss
. . . life in the modern world lacks a kind of unity, coherence, and meaningfulness that life in previous societies possessed. Modern individuals have developed their talents and powers in an overspecialised, one-sided way; their lives and personalities are fragmented, not integrated, and they lack the ability to identify with their society in a natural way and play the roles assigned to them in the world wholeheartedly.
As Nietzsche himself points out in the introduction to the second edition, The Birth of Tragedy is a work of Romanticism. It is concerned with the description of a highly idealised past which is analysed so as to highlight its contrast with and superiority to the ‘modern’ world.
Archaic Greek society, Nitzsche claims, is different from and superior to the modern world because archaic Greece was an artistic culture, whereas modern culture is centred on cognition (‘science’) and ‘morality’.
The truth about himself which Oedipus pursues so keenly throughout most of the play, is utterly intolerable to him when he attains it—that is why he blinds himself. That knowledge itself is, as Nietzsche puts it, an ‘enormous offence against nature’ which nature itself will avenge is the basic mythic truth which tragedy transmits and Oedipus instantiates. This is what makes tragedy literally incomprehensible to the optimistic Socrates with his faith in ‘knowledge’.
__________
. . . feels himself to be a god, now moves in such ecstasy and sublimity as once he saw the gods move in his dreams . . . no longer an artist, he has become a work of art: all nature’s artistic power reveals itself here, amidst shivers of intoxication, to the highest, most blissful satisfaction . . . (1)
Both have gazed into the true essence of things, they have acquired knowledge and they find action repulsive, for their actions can do nothing to change the eternal essence of things; they regard it as laughable or shameful that they should be expected to set to rights a world so out of joint. Knowledge kills action; action requires one to be shrouded in a veil of illusion—this is the lesson of Hamlet . . . it is not reflection, it is true knowledge, insight into the terrible truth, which outweighs every motive for action, both in the case of Hamlet and in that of Dionysiac man. Now no solace has any effect, there is longing for a world beyond death, beyond the gods themselves. (7)
Why should the artist be obliged to accommodate himself to a force which is strong only by virtue of its numbers? And if his talent and intentions make him feel superior to each individual spectator, why should he feel more respect for the joint expression of all these inferior capabilities than for the most talented individual spectator? (11)
Almost every age and stage of culture has attempted at some point to free itself, with deep feelings of anger, from the Greeks, because, in comparison with them, all one's own achievements, although apparently completely original and quire sincerely admired, suddenly seemed to lose colour and life and to shrivel into an unsuccessful copy or even a caricature . . . Thus people feel shame and fear in the face of the Greeks—unless there be one individual who reveres truth above all else and is therefore able to admit even this truth to himself: that the Greeks are the chariot-drivers who hold the reins of our culture, and every other culture, in their hands . . . (15)
One only needs to examine closely and in person these patrons . . . with their untiring cries of ‘Beauty! Beauty!’, and ask oneself if they give the impression of being Nature’s most favoured children, of having been nurtured and cosseted in the womb of the beautiful, or whether they are not in fact seeking a deceitful cover for their own coarseness, or an aesthetic pretext for their own sober-sided, impoverished sensibility. (19)
. . . he felt himself elevated to a kind of omniscience . . . as if he could dive down into the most delicate secrets of unconscious stirrings. (22)
On the other hand, there are those whom nature has equipped with nobler and more delicate faculties . . . (22)
I know that I must now lead the friend who is following these arguments sympathetically to a high place of lonely contemplation where he will have but a few companions, and I call out to encourage him that we must hold fast fo our radiant leaders, the Greeks. (23)
March 18, 2015
******SPOILERS*******
As a young man Nietzsche had shown great academic mastery of proven himself to be very academically gifted in philology and the Greek classics. His talents earned him a professorship at the University of Basel while still in his mid-twenties. Because of this, and because his talents were applauded by many of the prominent academics at UB, the publication of this book was highly anticipated. However when it was finally published, no-one knew what to make of it. It wasn't clear if this was supposed to be a philosophical work, a literary criticism, or an analysis of culture? The fact that this work doesn't follow syllogistic reasoning, and often goes against the historical critical method which the academics had become (and still are) so accustomed, this book went right over their heads. And, He wasn't unaware of how it may be perceived, as he asked the first chapter if people would know what he was attempting to do in this book.
Being the first of many works, this in no way is his greatest, but upon reading it, the reader will see some of the ideas which Nietzsche refines in later works in their infancy, and also some of which he abandons. But after having read this book now in two translations, for a total of three times, I can honestly say, that reading this book becomes a lot easier if one knows what to be on the lookout for - if one doesn't it tends to go over one's head also, and takes a few reads to know what is it that he's talking about. For this reason if you are interested in reading this book I will give you a few tools which will increase the probability of you getting the most out of this book.
Fist There are 4 things to keep in mind:
1. German culture copied the Greek culture in very high esteem to the point that much of Greek literature was made a part of German education. Nietzsche sought to answer the question of what had made the Greeks great, and given them the worthiness of emulation to those who look(ed) upon them from the outside.
2. Do not rake your head over some of the ideas if they don't make sense to you right away as they will make more sense if you choose to read some of his other works.
3. Because this book does not follow a method of syllogistic reasoning, ask yourself what questions aside from the overt is he trying to answer.
4. Ask yourselves, if you have read his other works, how the ideas you come across in this book show up in later works.
Secondly, the following are a few things about some of the concepts in this book to consider as you read this book.
1.Apollo: represents the individualistic, calculating, and rational - Apollonian element in man which gives shape to things and makes itself manifest, and makes itself known in:
•Dreams
•Art
•Poetry
•Imagination i.e. daydreams
2.Dionysus: Is the collective. He represents that which can’t be put into words, and though the Dionysian element is equated to the orgiastic and Dionysus is called the god of intoxication and wine – it is only because the impact the Dionysian has on the whole being of man, not should not be understood merely to exist in a visceral reaction which a person may have with a singular aspect of their being. The Dionysian is manifest, and makes itself known in:
•Music
•Dance
•Theatre/ drama
3.Unity: Though it has been said to me by others that unity is gained through the triumph of the Dionysian over the Apollonian, I believe that he is proposing more of a balance – that it is more about the interplay of these two forces. Also, do not think of these forces as definite structure, but simply categories for interpreting… they are not static, and do not have a monopoly in any situation, though one may be dominant than the other… it is more about the interplay which you should seek to understand. Also, the Apollonian and the Dionysian forces are not the only ones at play, only the major one’s he focuses on.
4.Reality: Both the Apollonian and the Dionysian are veils draped over reality, but they are the only way in which we can come to understand it. The better we understand our experience of these elements the better we can come to understand what reality may be.
5.Titans. Olympians, and Prometheus: The Greek gods, in general, are representative of the nature of the Greeks, and are just as flawed as they are. The Titans, pursued pleasure… they tricked each other, had mad affairs, raped humans, etc. but when the war between the Olympians and Titans ended, and the Olympians won out, a hierarchy developed among the gods. Apollo and Dionysus are Olympians. Prometheus, was a Titan, but he gave man the knowledge of fire, and therefore man no longer lived in constant fear of the elements, and as such was not in constant need of the gods. For this reason Prometheus was punished for his crime. A few things about Prometheus:
•Prometheus paid for the redemption of man with his crime and was condemned by the gods.
•Nietzsche replaces the myth of the original sin, with the promethean myth
6.The Chorus: is the part of the play where the actors, in a way, are in dialogue with the audience, and if the part is played right by the actor, the actor is seen as a representative of Dionysus speaking directly to the audience. The purpose of the chorus is to show the audience that whatever the dilemma may be, there isn’t only one situation.
7.The Ideal spectator: comes ready to enjoy the play and have an experience. Ideally, they are made to feel smarter than the characters on stage.
8.The Opera: is the worst kind of drama. It subordinates music to an idealized story with flowery characters who are shown to have ideal personalities. The music is cut up to create novel aesthetic effects in the audience. It has no understanding of life or tragedy. It is a perversion of what drama is supposed to be. As a note, keep in mind that Nietzsche thinks that modern music also isn’t what music is supposed to be as it relies merely on the excitation of emotions or memory.
9.Pre-Socratic Poets: Were the masters of tragedy. They had the capacity to dream, and to imagine worlds and values that their heroes possessed, and shared those dreams with the spectators of their plays
10.Post-Socratic poets: were mainly masters of comedy (which is the child of tragedy) and had no understanding of what tragedy really was. They used tragedy and irony to represent the lives of common people for comedic effect. Drama and theatre became a mirror in which the audience could see themselves and instead of true art, comedy seeks novelty by which to produce novel effects in the audience… it has in essence, subordinated itself to the crowd.
11.Socrates: marks a shift in western thought, and introduces the method for inquiry and rational self-reflection into western culture. Many cults of rationality would spring up after him, and they would all emphasize the importance of rationality and logic above everything else. Also keep these things in mind:
•Socrates hated tragedy… he thought it was irrational and not indicative of reality
•Socratic mentality falsely assumes that everything can be analyzed
•Socratic enquiry begins in optimism and ends in pessimism
•The Socratic method rips the cultural roots from under one who uses the method for inquiry
12.The Theoretical Man: is the modern child of the Socratic. He too believes that everything can be analyzed, and his methods also begin in Socratic optimism and end in pessimism. He has reduced the Apollonian to merely the logical, and the Dionysian to the emotional.
Overall this was an enjoyable book, and even though, as previously stated, this is nowhere near as impactful as some of his other works, I really do recommend that you take the time to read it if you can. I hope you find these tools to be helpful if you do.
p.s. I have a Nietzsche blog on Tumblr which you can check out for a bunch of quotes and such if you’d like: http://thusspokefriedrichnietzsche.tu...
May 26, 2016
Music is the direct copy of our metaphysical world, of our will. A loyal audience of the healing cathartic power of music and art of the Greek tragedies to the universal and eternal abysmal human sufferings and the instincts of ressentiment of slave morality brought by the Christianity, Nietzsche proclaimed in his book that he is an anti-christ. Nietzsche disgust the “slave morality” along with the ingrained feel of indebtedness brought by the Christianity. An avid art lover, Nietzsche claims that art makes life bearable. The essence of human life, according to Nietzsche, is not morality, but rather art.
Only Dionysian art, and the will to power of the healthy nobles, is the eternality.
Socratic rationality, according to Nietzsche, is ruining our temporary release from the eternal sufferings of the essence of human existence. While the introduction of Christianity, the slave revolt, started the endless feel of guilt and debt and ressentiment. More importantly, like a cognitive scientist and psychologist, Nietzsche disproves the Socratic rationality but rather first tries to figure out the workings of neurological and biological configurations and transformations of human beings before the attempts to understand the outside objective world.
The word by word translation of the birth of tragedy( Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik) is probably the birth of tragedy from the spirit of music. For Nietzsche, music is the immediate idea of the eternal life. (BT, p.79, 80) A famous nihilist, Nietzsche probably find a soothing and healing power inside the all embracing power of music, a direct copy of our metaphysical world and our will. “What, when seen through the prism of life, is the meaning of morality? ..art, and not morality--is the true metaphysical activity of man.” (BT,p.8) As spectators of operas and tragedies, individuals find themselves to be more than a tiny little bit of themselves alone, but together in the endless sea of human sufferings. “whereby the terrible is tamed by artistic means, and the comical, whereby disgust at absurdity is discharged by artistic means.” (BT, p.130) Music is our brain’s Narcotic, a healthier one than religion, against our repulsive thoughts about our existence.
Euripides reduced the role of music in the mere conversational drama and Socrates is searching for the truth and reason. For Nietzsche, their efforts are in the wrong direction, rationality would only dilute individual’s ability to live temporarily harmoniously with oneself and one’s life sufferings. Only art, and most importantly, music, or the art form of Tragedy specifically that of Wagner’s, we found a balance of the two greatest soothing artistic power: Apollonian and Dionysian. Apollo is the image maker or sculptor, “beauty is his element, eternal youth his companion” (BT,p.120) and imageless art of Dionysos. While music is a direct copy of the will itself, and only music could represent “ metaphysical in relation to all that is physical in the world.” (BT,p.77) He contends that the plastic art of Apollo overcome individuals’ suffering by the glorification of eternity of youth and beauty together with Dionysian art wins over the fear of the reality of eternal suffering. Nietzsche inherited Schopenhauer’s idea that music is the expression of human will and the essence of everything. Second derivatives of music are poetry and drama which remains merely on the noumenal field of appearances of Apollonian art. There is no eternal truth, according to Nietzsche, only Dionysis is the eternality.
“As an advocate of life my instinct invented for itself a fundamentally opposed doctrine and counter-evaluation of life, a purely artistic one, an anti-Christian one…..for who know the true name of the Antichrist?--by the name of a Greek God: I called it Dionysiac.” (BT,p.9) Nietzsche argues that artistic instincts are anti-christ in itself, and also life’s healing instincts as well to break from the “guilt, sin, sinfulness” and other sickness of ressentiment brought by the Christianity.
“The rise of the Christian god as the maximum god that has been attained thus far therefore also brought a maximum of feelings of guilt.” (GM, p.62, 1-2) Nietzsche talked a lot about human instincts and the direction of the discharge of those instincts: “All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn themselves inwards--this is what I call the internalizing of man: thus first grows in man that which he later calls his “soul”.” (GM, p.57, 1-3) Morality is a secret human instinct, according to Nietzsche, to human self annihilation, a “will to negate life.” Therefore Nietzsche argues life’s essence is not morality, but a purely artistic one, which equals to anti-Christianity.
“The people were victorious--or ‘the slaves’, or ‘the mob’, or ‘the herd’, or whatever you like to call them--if this happened through the Jews…..everything is jewifying or christifying or mobidying as we watch” (GM, p. 18, 12-20) Therefore two kinds of people, according to Nietzsche, the healthy and the sick, who are the nobles and the slaves. There is, though, a middle ground between the two, that is the priest. Though, according to Nietzsche, the priest also belong to the sick, for “He must be sick himself, he must be related to the sick and short-changed from the ground up in order to understand them”(GM, p.90, 14-15). Nobility developed from master morality, it’s an expression of the domination and rule over others, the will to power.
“Hostility, cruelty, pleasure in persecution, in assault, in change, in destruction--all of that turning itself against the possessors of such instincts: that is the origin of “bad conscience”. (GM, p.57, 12-13) The counterforce of the noble and healthy will to power, is the struggle against our own natural instincts, which is exactly what Christianity advocated, is the bad conscience and also slave morality. “the slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values:...whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant yes-saying to oneself, from the outset slave morality says “no” to an “outside”, to a “different”, to a “not-self”.(GM, p.19, 4-8) Ressentiment is the creation of an imagined scapegoat when individuals produce a sense of hostility in order to make oneself free from blame and frustration.
Ressentiment is sickness, explosive in manner. The slave morality created ressentiment where it defines the powerful and healthy qualities of the nobles as “evil” and its own contrasting qualities as “good”. The slaves use this as a defense mechanism to avoid to address and to overcome their own flaws. The ego created an scapegoat of one’s own weaknesses and frustration and disgust toward oneself. While the healthy and the nobles are those who continue the self-overcoming and who likely focus on artistic and dionysian works. “the privilege of the few” resounded in the face of the old lie-slogan of ressentiment, “the privilege of the majority,” in the face of the will to lowering, to debasement, to leveling, to the downward and evening ward of man!” (GM, p.32, 13-19) For Nietzsche, democracy along with Christianity has the same debasing and sick impulse to make all equal, to make all slaves.
This movement of slave revolt, organized by the priest, killed the creative Dionysian element of the nobility and made the all sick and diseased slavery herd become one. Obsurdly, Christianity is the herd or the slave’s will to power. In their will to power, or the unifying force to make all equal to make all slaves, the noble’s will, the music, the Dionysian art, the only true heal to the human sufferings, are stifled. Nietzsche seems unconsciously calling for the coming of overman, or supermen, Ubermensch, someone like Napoleon, to change the domination of slave revolt.
Only Dionysian art, and the will to power of the healthy nobles, is the eternality.
Socratic rationality, according to Nietzsche, is ruining our temporary release from the eternal sufferings of the essence of human existence. While the introduction of Christianity, the slave revolt, started the endless feel of guilt and debt and ressentiment. More importantly, like a cognitive scientist and psychologist, Nietzsche disproves the Socratic rationality but rather first tries to figure out the workings of neurological and biological configurations and transformations of human beings before the attempts to understand the outside objective world.
The word by word translation of the birth of tragedy( Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik) is probably the birth of tragedy from the spirit of music. For Nietzsche, music is the immediate idea of the eternal life. (BT, p.79, 80) A famous nihilist, Nietzsche probably find a soothing and healing power inside the all embracing power of music, a direct copy of our metaphysical world and our will. “What, when seen through the prism of life, is the meaning of morality? ..art, and not morality--is the true metaphysical activity of man.” (BT,p.8) As spectators of operas and tragedies, individuals find themselves to be more than a tiny little bit of themselves alone, but together in the endless sea of human sufferings. “whereby the terrible is tamed by artistic means, and the comical, whereby disgust at absurdity is discharged by artistic means.” (BT, p.130) Music is our brain’s Narcotic, a healthier one than religion, against our repulsive thoughts about our existence.
Euripides reduced the role of music in the mere conversational drama and Socrates is searching for the truth and reason. For Nietzsche, their efforts are in the wrong direction, rationality would only dilute individual’s ability to live temporarily harmoniously with oneself and one’s life sufferings. Only art, and most importantly, music, or the art form of Tragedy specifically that of Wagner’s, we found a balance of the two greatest soothing artistic power: Apollonian and Dionysian. Apollo is the image maker or sculptor, “beauty is his element, eternal youth his companion” (BT,p.120) and imageless art of Dionysos. While music is a direct copy of the will itself, and only music could represent “ metaphysical in relation to all that is physical in the world.” (BT,p.77) He contends that the plastic art of Apollo overcome individuals’ suffering by the glorification of eternity of youth and beauty together with Dionysian art wins over the fear of the reality of eternal suffering. Nietzsche inherited Schopenhauer’s idea that music is the expression of human will and the essence of everything. Second derivatives of music are poetry and drama which remains merely on the noumenal field of appearances of Apollonian art. There is no eternal truth, according to Nietzsche, only Dionysis is the eternality.
“As an advocate of life my instinct invented for itself a fundamentally opposed doctrine and counter-evaluation of life, a purely artistic one, an anti-Christian one…..for who know the true name of the Antichrist?--by the name of a Greek God: I called it Dionysiac.” (BT,p.9) Nietzsche argues that artistic instincts are anti-christ in itself, and also life’s healing instincts as well to break from the “guilt, sin, sinfulness” and other sickness of ressentiment brought by the Christianity.
“The rise of the Christian god as the maximum god that has been attained thus far therefore also brought a maximum of feelings of guilt.” (GM, p.62, 1-2) Nietzsche talked a lot about human instincts and the direction of the discharge of those instincts: “All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn themselves inwards--this is what I call the internalizing of man: thus first grows in man that which he later calls his “soul”.” (GM, p.57, 1-3) Morality is a secret human instinct, according to Nietzsche, to human self annihilation, a “will to negate life.” Therefore Nietzsche argues life’s essence is not morality, but a purely artistic one, which equals to anti-Christianity.
“The people were victorious--or ‘the slaves’, or ‘the mob’, or ‘the herd’, or whatever you like to call them--if this happened through the Jews…..everything is jewifying or christifying or mobidying as we watch” (GM, p. 18, 12-20) Therefore two kinds of people, according to Nietzsche, the healthy and the sick, who are the nobles and the slaves. There is, though, a middle ground between the two, that is the priest. Though, according to Nietzsche, the priest also belong to the sick, for “He must be sick himself, he must be related to the sick and short-changed from the ground up in order to understand them”(GM, p.90, 14-15). Nobility developed from master morality, it’s an expression of the domination and rule over others, the will to power.
“Hostility, cruelty, pleasure in persecution, in assault, in change, in destruction--all of that turning itself against the possessors of such instincts: that is the origin of “bad conscience”. (GM, p.57, 12-13) The counterforce of the noble and healthy will to power, is the struggle against our own natural instincts, which is exactly what Christianity advocated, is the bad conscience and also slave morality. “the slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values:...whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant yes-saying to oneself, from the outset slave morality says “no” to an “outside”, to a “different”, to a “not-self”.(GM, p.19, 4-8) Ressentiment is the creation of an imagined scapegoat when individuals produce a sense of hostility in order to make oneself free from blame and frustration.
Ressentiment is sickness, explosive in manner. The slave morality created ressentiment where it defines the powerful and healthy qualities of the nobles as “evil” and its own contrasting qualities as “good”. The slaves use this as a defense mechanism to avoid to address and to overcome their own flaws. The ego created an scapegoat of one’s own weaknesses and frustration and disgust toward oneself. While the healthy and the nobles are those who continue the self-overcoming and who likely focus on artistic and dionysian works. “the privilege of the few” resounded in the face of the old lie-slogan of ressentiment, “the privilege of the majority,” in the face of the will to lowering, to debasement, to leveling, to the downward and evening ward of man!” (GM, p.32, 13-19) For Nietzsche, democracy along with Christianity has the same debasing and sick impulse to make all equal, to make all slaves.
This movement of slave revolt, organized by the priest, killed the creative Dionysian element of the nobility and made the all sick and diseased slavery herd become one. Obsurdly, Christianity is the herd or the slave’s will to power. In their will to power, or the unifying force to make all equal to make all slaves, the noble’s will, the music, the Dionysian art, the only true heal to the human sufferings, are stifled. Nietzsche seems unconsciously calling for the coming of overman, or supermen, Ubermensch, someone like Napoleon, to change the domination of slave revolt.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 17, 2025
I have never thought that a person can write like this. This writing is full of metaphors and theories. It is prosaic even though it is a translation work. Apollonian and Dionysian elements constitute tragedy together, as the reality is the combination of order and chaos, reason and passion, beauty and primal will. Tragedy does not avoid the cruelty of life by creating delusions like science or morality does. It faces the suffering and the absurdity of life directly.
For Nietzsche, life is full of pain and struggle. Tragedy transforms these unbearable truths into aesthetic experiences. Tragedy reflects the universal human condition—Apollonian and Dionysian characteristics.
The interesting resonance I found in the book is Nietzsche’s description of the theoretical man. He was afraid that the culture of our society will be controlled by theoretical men—the people of learning—instead of the people of culture who truly master art. In today’s world, the people of learning devote themselves to creating AI, which generates the most content of today’s culture, even art itself.
This is what Nietzsche terrified the most. And so am I. AI does not have consciousness and does not understand art. It generates based on its database, which means it cannot create art. Art itself is an innovation, a personal reflection of the world. However, AI does not experience the world like we do. In Nietzsche’s words, AI does not experience the Apollonian and Dionysian characters in life.
For Nietzsche, life is full of pain and struggle. Tragedy transforms these unbearable truths into aesthetic experiences. Tragedy reflects the universal human condition—Apollonian and Dionysian characteristics.
The interesting resonance I found in the book is Nietzsche’s description of the theoretical man. He was afraid that the culture of our society will be controlled by theoretical men—the people of learning—instead of the people of culture who truly master art. In today’s world, the people of learning devote themselves to creating AI, which generates the most content of today’s culture, even art itself.
This is what Nietzsche terrified the most. And so am I. AI does not have consciousness and does not understand art. It generates based on its database, which means it cannot create art. Art itself is an innovation, a personal reflection of the world. However, AI does not experience the world like we do. In Nietzsche’s words, AI does not experience the Apollonian and Dionysian characters in life.
December 28, 2020
نیچه در این اثر(تولد تراژدی)، مخالفِ نفیِ بوداییِ شوپنهاور از اراده است. او استدلال میکند که زندگی ارزش زندگی کردن با وجودِ سختیهای بسیارش را دارد. نیچه جهان زیست را جهانی هراسآور و وحشتزا می بیند، اما برخلاف شوپنهاور که در نهایت تسلیمشدگی را واکنش انسان در برابر چنین هجومی تشخیص میدهد، نیچه با پی افکندن نیروی اراده و در واقع تسلیمناشدگی فلسفهای دیگر در قبال این جهانِ تراژیک ترسیم میکند: «رازی در جهان هست که زندگی را هراسآور و تراژیک میسازد»؛ اما «به یاری هنر می توان از این هراس و سویۀ تراژیک زندگی عبور کرد.» سنت فلسفی آلمانی از آنجایی که همواره به جامعۀ یونان باستان همچون تجلی جامعهای آرمانی و انسانی و آزاد مینگرد، نیچه نیز در بیان نمونهای عالی و حقیقی از کار هنری به دوران یونان و نیروهای آفرینندۀ آنها نظر دارد. نیچه معتقد است که «یونانیان به خوبی از راز آن دنیای پنهان باخبر بودند. بزرگی و عظمت روحشان در آن بود که تسلیم آن جهان نمیشدند.
او هوادار فلسفهٔ آرتور شوپنهاور فیلسوف شهیر آلمانی بود و با واگنر آهنگساز آلمانی دوستی نزدیکی داشت. وی بعدها گوشهٔ انزواء گرفت و از همه دوستانش رویگردان شد.
او در طول دوران تدریس در دانشگاه بازل با واگنر آشنایی داشت. قسمت دوم کتاب تولد تراژدی تا حدی با دنیای موسیقی «واگنر» نیز سروکار دارد. نیچه این آهنگساز را با لقب «مینوتار پیر» میخواند. برتراند راسل در «تاریخ فلسفه غرب» در مورد نیچه میگوید: «ابرمرد نیچه شباهت بسیاری به زیگفرید (پهلوان افسانهای آلمان) دارد فقط با این تفاوت که او زبان یونانی هم میداند.»
او هوادار فلسفهٔ آرتور شوپنهاور فیلسوف شهیر آلمانی بود و با واگنر آهنگساز آلمانی دوستی نزدیکی داشت. وی بعدها گوشهٔ انزواء گرفت و از همه دوستانش رویگردان شد.
او در طول دوران تدریس در دانشگاه بازل با واگنر آشنایی داشت. قسمت دوم کتاب تولد تراژدی تا حدی با دنیای موسیقی «واگنر» نیز سروکار دارد. نیچه این آهنگساز را با لقب «مینوتار پیر» میخواند. برتراند راسل در «تاریخ فلسفه غرب» در مورد نیچه میگوید: «ابرمرد نیچه شباهت بسیاری به زیگفرید (پهلوان افسانهای آلمان) دارد فقط با این تفاوت که او زبان یونانی هم میداند.»
August 27, 2024
Pretty conflicted about this one. Very provocative, very problematic. It's an important intervention against Schiller's tendency to view the Greek poets/tragedians as a homogeneous group of naive artists directly portraying nature. Although Schiller doesn't always identify this nature as idyllic, he tends to. Nietzsche is absolutely correct to focus instead on the recurrent theme of the Olympian Gods banishing the Old Gods, and while the identification of the Old Gods with Dionysus/Nature seems fraught, as they're often more about lawless revenge contrasted with Athenian lawfulness (eg. in Aeschylus' "Eumenides") it's nonetheless pretty compelling.
There's surely a tradition of mythological interpretation Nietzsche's drawing on here - I wonder how much can be found in Vico, and the way that Apollonian art develops out of Dionysian is very reminiscent of Schelling's development of the God of Light, the Ground of Reason, out of the darkness of the irrational, natural Unground. Schelling's 1809 Freedom Essay talks about this and makes the analogy with the New/Old Gods, although he's rooting for a Christian victory where men, by their free will, lock away the old forces and reject egotism. Schelling's late philosophy apparently makes the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction explicit, and it seems like Nietzsche may have picked up this terminology from Bachofen, who took classes with Schelling in university. It also seems likely that The Birth of Tragedy was an influence on Freud's theories of sublimation, especially "Civilization and its Discontents", due to the way that an Apollonian locking away of the old gods forces them to re-merge in Dionysian form as art.
Some problems with Nietzsche's interpretation:
- extreme German chauvinism, especially in the final sections about Wagner.
- orientalism that identifies Asia/Buddhism with lethargy/denial of self. This bleeds into his understanding of Dionysus due to the idea (apparently discredited by scholars but clearly stated in Euripides' Bacchants) that Dionysus was a new god associated with Asiatic hordes. Thus he can't decide whether nature is violent and active (as he'd prefer) or harmonious (the view of Schiller's he's attempting to reject)
- idea that aesthetic contemplation is about a disinterested attitude, a merging with the Schopenhauer's World-Will. Seems like this was common to a lot of aesthetic discourse of the period, but it means that his Apollo gets strangely conflated with the Dionysian/Oriental calmness at times.
- pretty confused reading of the Prometheus myth, as he wants to make it the "Aryan" analog of the "Semitic" original sin, while also ignoring the relation of Prometheus to technology/scientific reason.
- he's pretty selective about when he takes the contents of the myths seriously, and his tendency to equate all politics with Athenian democracy makes him resistant to the clear political and patriotic aspects of a number of the tragedies
- he blames Socrates for all of the flaws in Euripides plays (eg. the prologue, the deus ex machina), while also projecting an image of liberal, democratic science back on Socrates. This seems unjustified, as surely Socrates is more closely connected with the elite, anti-democratic reaction. There do seem to be some quotes from Greek sources that make this Socrates/Euripides connection, but the whole section seems corrupted by his anti-democratic & anti-scientific bile.
- pretty wacky ideas about the special metaphysical nature of music, and his mockery of opera seems like it ought to implicate Wagner's work as well.
There's surely a tradition of mythological interpretation Nietzsche's drawing on here - I wonder how much can be found in Vico, and the way that Apollonian art develops out of Dionysian is very reminiscent of Schelling's development of the God of Light, the Ground of Reason, out of the darkness of the irrational, natural Unground. Schelling's 1809 Freedom Essay talks about this and makes the analogy with the New/Old Gods, although he's rooting for a Christian victory where men, by their free will, lock away the old forces and reject egotism. Schelling's late philosophy apparently makes the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction explicit, and it seems like Nietzsche may have picked up this terminology from Bachofen, who took classes with Schelling in university. It also seems likely that The Birth of Tragedy was an influence on Freud's theories of sublimation, especially "Civilization and its Discontents", due to the way that an Apollonian locking away of the old gods forces them to re-merge in Dionysian form as art.
Some problems with Nietzsche's interpretation:
- extreme German chauvinism, especially in the final sections about Wagner.
- orientalism that identifies Asia/Buddhism with lethargy/denial of self. This bleeds into his understanding of Dionysus due to the idea (apparently discredited by scholars but clearly stated in Euripides' Bacchants) that Dionysus was a new god associated with Asiatic hordes. Thus he can't decide whether nature is violent and active (as he'd prefer) or harmonious (the view of Schiller's he's attempting to reject)
- idea that aesthetic contemplation is about a disinterested attitude, a merging with the Schopenhauer's World-Will. Seems like this was common to a lot of aesthetic discourse of the period, but it means that his Apollo gets strangely conflated with the Dionysian/Oriental calmness at times.
- pretty confused reading of the Prometheus myth, as he wants to make it the "Aryan" analog of the "Semitic" original sin, while also ignoring the relation of Prometheus to technology/scientific reason.
- he's pretty selective about when he takes the contents of the myths seriously, and his tendency to equate all politics with Athenian democracy makes him resistant to the clear political and patriotic aspects of a number of the tragedies
- he blames Socrates for all of the flaws in Euripides plays (eg. the prologue, the deus ex machina), while also projecting an image of liberal, democratic science back on Socrates. This seems unjustified, as surely Socrates is more closely connected with the elite, anti-democratic reaction. There do seem to be some quotes from Greek sources that make this Socrates/Euripides connection, but the whole section seems corrupted by his anti-democratic & anti-scientific bile.
- pretty wacky ideas about the special metaphysical nature of music, and his mockery of opera seems like it ought to implicate Wagner's work as well.
July 27, 2024
A book which seemingly is dedicated to a rather narrow topic of Greek Tragedy and its origins, but what Nietzsche achieves in this book with his new way of looking at the culture, art, society with his radical Apolline/Dionysiac distinction is remarkable. You could argue the whole of Spengler's metaphysics of "decline of the west" are already here, or the following centuries "traditionalism" with its radical critique of positivism is already in this book. His visionary analysis of modern "socratic" world view and it's consequences will feel like a prophetic call from beyond. Either way this book will change you in some way, either how you look at Greek tragedy, it's culture and world view and their Olympic Gods or your outlook on the "present time".
October 29, 2024
doesn't contain much of Nietzsche's later philosophy, utterly unacademic and has some gets some historical facts wrong despite him being a literal professor of Philology. There was a famous take down of this book by one of his contemporaries if that would interest you. But reading in the context of Schopenhauer, a really interesting answer to how justify life as an art or "aesthetic phenomenon." I just appreciate the aesthetic value of this book and come back to every now and then
January 17, 2020
Years after the initial publication of this work, Nietzsche admitted that it is rather romantic in its tone, but I'd argue that its ideas are not. Extremely thought-provoking and actually clarifying - the world seems a little more vivid after closing this book.
March 3, 2018
Good edition with a great introduction and two very helpful complementary essays by Nietzsche himself. Didn’t much enjoy the main text, though.
June 3, 2021
لمس فلسفه و هنر والای یونان باستان
آدم رو به فکر وا میداره
از نیچه خوندن لذت بردم
آدم رو به فکر وا میداره
از نیچه خوندن لذت بردم
January 26, 2022
Holy BASED, Fredrich showed me the way and upon completing this book I wrote a Wagnarian opera about Nietzsche's life. Call that a new german tragedy 😂
Read
February 22, 2024WHAT A RIDE
Read
February 24, 2025Oh god
March 5, 2025
Big bro took the wisdom of Silenus to heart.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews