Listening to Nietzsche

7/29/2019 Listening to Nietzsche

1/12

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia

Listening to NietzscheAuthor(s): Jeremiah L. AlbergSource: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, T. 57, Fasc. 1, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): I -Efeitos do seu Pensamento (Jan. - Mar., 2001), pp. 61-71Published by: Revista Portuguesa de FilosofiaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337606 .

Accessed: 24/07/2013 09:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toRevista

Portuguesa de Filosofia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 93.136.15.76 on Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:10:27 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rpfhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40337606?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40337606?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rpf


2/12

ListeningoNietzscheJeremiahL. Alberg*

Abstract: This rticlegivesan interpretationfF. Nietzsches The Birth f Tragedy(1872)as a texthatxemplifieshe heoryhatt dvances n ts wn extualractice.norder o how his,he uthorxplains irstheway n whichNietzsche ndoes hedis-tinctionetweencience nd art nthe ext ndthen mbodies his ndoing y kind fwritinghich s both heoreticalnthe ense fbeing theorybout ragedynd s artitselfn the ense fbeing tragedy.e showsurther hywritingn thiswaywasnec-essary ccordingo Nietzschesunderstandingftragedy.hekey o the resentnter-pretations the dentificationf ocrates s the ragic ero f he iece.The rticleon-cludeswith fewconsiderationsfhowNietzshes identificationfSocrateswith io-nysusanhelp eadusbeyond ionysus.Key Words:Art Aesthetics.hristianity.lassics.Cross.Dionysus.Nietzsche. ragedy.Tragic ffectocrates. uffering.iolence.

Resumo:Opresentertigo retendeerurnanterpretandoa obraAOrigema Tragdia(1872)deFriedrich ietzsche,nquantoextoue pe emprtica suaprpria eoria.Para demonstrarstomesmo, autor omega or explicar modo omoNietzscheb-le no texto distinguontre iencia artepara depois xemplificarstamesmaboli-co mediantem ipode escrita ue simultaneamenteerico o sentido e serurnateoria cercada tragdia artepropriamenteitano sentido e ser eleprprio rnatragdia.Mostra-seambmtque ponto stemodode escreverranecessarioendoem onta noconietzschianae tragdia. o centro esta nterpretacaost identi-ficacode Scrates omo heri rgico apeca. O artigo onclu om lgumas onsi-deracoes cercado modo omo identificandoperada orNietzschentre cratesDionisio ospodeustamentejudar ultrapassarstaltimaigura.Palavras-Chave:Arte.Dionisio.Efeito rgico. ristianismo.ruz.Esttica.Nietzsche.Socrates. ofrimento.ragedia.Violencia.

IntroductiontheOdyssey omer escribes dysseus ncounterith he irens.1 emustplug ll the rew's arswithwax,whilehehimselfsbound othemast. romthere ecan listen otheSirens, rofitingromwhat hey ay,withouteing

* FacultyfHumanities,ophiaUniversityTokyo, apan).1Homer, heOdyssey,r.E.V. Rieu London:Penquin ooks,1946)Bk. 12.1 amin-debted oGil Bailliefor hefollowingnalysis.toccurs n audiotapes vailable rom heFlorilegionstitute.Q Revista ortuguesade 1'ii.osoeia, 7 2001 ,6 1 71

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

62 Jeremiah Albero

led to destruction.he attractivenessf theSirens susuallynterpreteds a sortof sexualallure, educing nsuspectingut ustingailors otheir eath.But fone reads he ext,t s not exualfavors hat hey ffer,atherhey ellofOdys-seus'exploits; heyell he ales f war.Thedangerhen anbe interpreteds thedanger f fallingnto heheroicworld fmyth. o listen oo deeply o thesestoriess tobe destroyed.utOdysseus anhear hem ndthey anhelphim,becausehe is tied o themast. willreturno the ignificancef thisbeing tiedtothemast" t the ndofthis rticle.Nietzsche istened eeply o themythsnd stories f the ncientworld. heresult fthis isteningshisphilosophyndhis madness.Although ambynomeans deconstructionist,share oodeeply nthe modernrpostmoderni-lemma otbewary fmakingoogreat distinctionetweenhese woresults.would ikenow to listen oNietzsche,ndat the ametime o askhow tmightbepossible o listen ohim, hat s,to listennd be helpedbyhim,without ol-lowing im nthepath hat eads o madness.

The GenreThe text would ike to listen o,the text choose to put questions o,isNietzsche's irstook,TheBirthfTragedy.1ut norder o isten o t,we need

toknowwhatwe are isteningo,whatkind fwritings this? his sperhapshemostmportantuestion acinghereader fthis ext.Whathas disturbed ostcommentators,ncluding ietzsche imself,s thedual naturefthework.3 heBirth fTragedys a theorybout ragedy,.e. a contributiono aesthetics. utthis heoryftragedyontainednthe ext emands hat he heorytself e non--theoreticalrpractical. esthetics ust e a practicalrt, tmust eachhumanshowto ive nd tcannot e practicals a theoryut nly s anart.TheBirthfTragedyvercomes hedistinctionetweenheoryndpractice yovercomingthedistinctionetween cience Wissenschaft)ndart Kunst). t overcomes tbypracticingnthe ext ts heory.heBirthfTragedys itself ot implybouttragedy;t s itself tragedynthat tattemptsoproducend notustdescribethe ragic ffectnthereader. t is onlywhen hetext s readon this evelthatonecanunderstandhewhole ext nd he ext s a whole.

2 This work first ppeared as Die Geburt der Tragdie aus dem Geiste der Musikin1872 andwas reprintedn 1874. A new editionwith foreward yNietzsche was publishedin 1 86 as Die Geburtder Tragdie.Oder: GriechenthumndPessimismus.The text haveused comes from:FriedrichNietzsche,ScimmtlicheWerke.Kritische tudienausgabein 15Bnden.hg.v. G. Colli und M. Montinari,Mnchen1980. FortheEnglishtranslationhaveused: The Birth f Tragedy, rans. haun Whiteside, d. Michael Tanner London: PenguinBooks, 1993).3 Cf. "Versuch einerSelbstkritik",speciallyPar. 2: ..die Wissenschaft nter erOptikdes Knstlers u sehen.die Kunst berunter erdes Lebens...v p. 14.Revista ortuguesadi-: ilosofia,57 2001 ,63-71



4/12

Listening oNihtzschh 63

OtherReadingsAlreadyhaverevealedomethingfmy eading, y wn istening,ut eforegoing urther,would ike o situatet n terms f othernterpretations.ertainlyTheBirth f Tragedys a work hat oncerns tselfwithGreek ragedy.t waswrittenya brilliantoung hilologist.arbara on Reibnitz ives very om-plete ommentaryndanalysis f hefirstwelve haptersf TheBirthfTragedy,situatingt nNietzsche's evelopments a youngcholar.4nmanyways his s awelcome edress o thetendencyo ignore his ritical imension f Nietzschethought.he takes eriouslyhefact hatNietzschentendedhiswork s a contri-

bution otheworld fclassical hilology.nthe ther and,hevery acthat t sonly commentarynthefirstwelve haptershows ts imitediewpoint,.e. thestudyf lassical iterature.I believe hat uch limitedpproach as itsvalue nd tsplace.Less clear ome is the dvantagefbemoaninghe fact hatNietzsche id notwrite workother han heone he did in factwrite.WalterKauftnannoes ustthat nthistranslatorntroductiono the ext fThe Birthf Tragedynd TheCase of Wag-ner? quote:Unfortunately,he Birth f Tragedydoes not end withSection 15 as an earlydraftdid and thebook clearly oughtto. Another en sectionsfollowthatweaken thewhole

book immeasurably.Sections 1through are introductorynd inferiortylistically.he heart f thebookis found n Sections7 through ,which deal with hebirth nd deathoftragedy. his isbyfar he bestpart f thebook and can probablybe understood airlywell byitself. ec-tions16-25 are less worth f Nietzschethan nything lse ofcomparable engthhe everpublished and he himself oon felt his.Topracticehis ind f nterpretationsto dismembertext,nddismemberinga text an ead one toexpel hevery ectionsfthe ext,which iveonethe oolsfor nderstandingt. The fact hat t s carriedutbya famous cholar oesnotmake tmore cceptable.M.S. Silkand J.P.Stern6rovide marvelouslyomprehensivetudy fthebackgroundnddevelopmentf77BirthfTragedy.heir xplanationsfNietz-sche's allusions o theclassics, specially o theGreek ragedies,re mostwel-come.They ecognize hat hey allthe hybrid"ature fthework, ut anonlyexplaint ntermsfdifferentrives raimsthatNietzsche ever ucceededn

4 Barbaravon Reibnitz, in Kommentaru FreidrichNeitzsche,Die Geburt erTrazdieansdemGeistederMusik Kap. 1-12), Stuttgart, erlagJ.B.Metzler,1992).5 FriedrichNietzsche,The Birth f Tragedy nd The Case of Wagner, ranslatedwithcommentary y WalterKaufmann,New York: VintageBooks, 1967). The quotation hatfollows s takenfrom . 13.6 M.S. Silk and J.P. Stern,Nietzscheon Tragedy, Cambridge,CambridgeUP, 1981).Hereafterhiswillbe referredo as 'Silk & Stern'.

RivistaPortuguesadeFiwsoma,57 2001 ,63-71



5/12

64 Jeremiah Albero

integrating.7t s of nteresthat everal imes hey efer othework s a centaurthat s,a monster,mythical igurefcompositemakeup.8here s somethingvery ppositef his,nd tthe ame ime omethingerywrong.tmakest asierforus to simply xpelNietzsche'swork ne more ime.Atcriticalmomentsfinterpretationhey referointerprethe extmythologicallyatherhan sking owhat ealitytmay efer.9hey end ostay nthe urfaceevel fassociationsortheirnterpretationsatherhanooking or ecessaryonnections.hope o showwhy,fone does notgrasp hefundamentaleality, hich s hidden,hen ll onecando is ook tthe urface iddles.10Finally, ohn allishasproducednexcellenttudyf TheBirthfTragedyn

hisCrossings: ietzschend the pace ofTragedy.xI am ndebtedo hisdevelop-mentfthe dea of"space"for he nterpretationfthiswork.He is alsoveryen-sitive otheway nwhichNietzschemovesback nd forthetween xtremes.uthealso sees all this s a kind fplay, game hat neplayswithNietzsche. edoesnot ursue hat iesbehindhe elf-destructionf he extwhich e so clearlysees.12 e is aware f what e calls the sliding"fthe ext rom he heoreticalothe rtistic,ut s theword uggests,his lidingssomethinghat ccurs ndertsownweight,ndnot or reason.13Science nd Art

Before oingnto detailednalysis f howNietzschettemptsoproducehetragicffectndthuswriteragedyna theoreticalkey', would ike oexplainwhywritingnthismanners the nlyway hat onformso hisown esthetiche-ory.Nietzsches aware hatwritingnthiswaytransformsot nly he cience faestheticsnto practicalrt, ut hat t ransformsrt tself. rt ecomest oncetheoreticalnd practicalnterprise.We canunderstandhecrossingfcategories, hichNietzsche ndertakesnthefollowing anner.ragedys forNietzsche he rt orm hose ndorpurposeis the epresentationf heustificationf humanxistence.t makes tpossible orhumanso live.AccordingoNietzsche heworld nd our ife n tcanonlyfindtheirustificationhen onceived s an "aesthetichenomenon".hus aesthetics

7Cf. 'Silk&Stenvp. 189.8The authors uotea letterwritten yNietzschein 1 70, inwhich he states hat Schol-arship, it and philosophy re now growingtogethernsideme so muchthatTil be givingbirth o centaurs ne dav/*Cf. n.39 and n. 188.9 Cf. Silk & Stem p. 202, wheretheygive their nteipretationf thevulture r Geierwhich ppeal'son p. 1 2 ofthetext.10Cf. Silk & Sternp. 206-209 torwhattheyview as ..riddles".1 John allis, TheBirth fTragedynhisCrossings:Nietzsche nd the pace of Tragedy,(Chicago: Univ. ofChicago P, 1991).12Cf.Sallis, p. 148.13Cf.Sallis,p. 147-149.Revista ortuguesadeEu.osoeia,57 2001),63-7!



6/12

Listening oNihtzschu 65

is not imply science fbeauty, disinterestedescriptionfhow ertainulturalartifacts,uch s tragedy,chieve heir ffects.henew science f aestheticsasanextremelyracticalent itgiveshumans reason or iving it ustifiesu-man xistencen thefaceof thepainand horrorf life. t is also the cience rtheory hose nd orpurposesto understandhis racticalndofart.But, s weshall ee, tcannot o this implys theory.nfact,his urpose as beenhistori-cally rustratedy he heoreticalttitudehatwasembodiednSocratesndwhichNietzschedentifiesith heAlexandrianulture.nordero ceasebeing blockon account f itstheoreticalature,he cience faestheticsas tobe shown olead modernman othe ame nsightowhich ragedyed theGreeks the ragicinsighttself.hus, esthetics,nd o TheBirthfTragedy,annotmerelyheorizeabout ragedy,thas toembody ragedy.t s onlywhenwe read he ext s dou-bling ackupon tself,n the ensethat hetheorynscribedn the ext lso in-scribes praxis,hat tsmeaning egins o unfold orus. Our usualdistinctionsbetweenheoryndpraxis,s well as those etweenrt nd science o not pplyhere. his swhatNietzsche asaccomplishednTheBirthf Tragedy.he dis-tinctionetweenrt ndphilosophysundone.

TheTragicEffectPerhapshebestway ograspwhat he ssence ftragedys forNietzsches tolisten o his descriptionfwhatEuripidesxperienced henhe watchedAes-chylean ragedy.n thetheatreuripidesxperiencedomethingwhich nyoneinitiatednto hedeeperecretsfAeschyleanragedy ightaveforetold":in everyfeature, very ine,he foundsomethingncommensurable, certaindeceptiveprecision nd at thesame timean enigmaticdepth, n infinite ackground.The clearestcharacter tillhad a comet's tail attached o it,whichseemedto point o uncertainty,osomething hatcould not be illuminated.The same twilightZwielicht)shroudedthestructureftheplay,particularlyhemeaning fthe chorus p. 58-59).We see here uite learlyhedualnature hats the ssence ftragedy.er-

tainly omethings revealed, ut what s revealed s that omethings hidden.There s"somethingncommensurable"neveryine. omethinghat annot e il-luminatedppears. hus, he ssence ftragedys such hatwhat s revealeds aUmschleierungveiling; hat s revealeds thatomethings hidden.LaterntheworkNietzschelsogives kind fphenomenologyf he ffectftruemusicalragedyothat he ttentiveriendan nterpretisown xperiencesp.105).As the ragicmythspresented,nefeels ind fomniscience,s ifhispowersofvisionwerenotmerelyuperficialut ouldpenetrateothevery epthsibid).14Cf. GT, p. 139. Nietzsche is speakingof the very pointwheretragedyreaches its

"hchsteZieF% nd says it does thisthrough heapollinian Tauschung,whichis a "anhal-tendeUmschleierung er eigentlichen ionysischenWirkung".Thus,we need notonlytolook at thenature f theUmschleierung,ut also to ask after he"eigentlichen ionysischenWirkung".Revista ortuguesade Filosoiia, 57 2001),63-7

5



7/12

66 Jeremiah Albero

The world s transfiguredut t s precisely hisworld,which s also denied ibid).This denial is notsome flightntounreality,ut is concretely ejoicing nthe de-struction f thetragichero. It is comprehensionto theirverydepths"yet t loves"to escape into incomprehension". ietzsche clearestformulations thus: "Helooks morekeenly,moredeeplythanever,and yetwishes for blindness" ibid).This does not mean thatone does in fact see everythingnd onlywishes to beblind. nthedrama, s said above, one penetratesnto he nnerworld, nd"yetwefelt s thoughwe werewatching symbol, lmost maginingwe could divine tsdeepestmeaning, ndwishing o draw t aside like a curtain oglimpse heprimor-dial imagethat aybehind" p. 113). The clarity fthepicture oes notsatisfy. heeffect n theviewer sclear;theeye iskept inthrall" utcannotpenetrateurther.. fort themage]eemedo reveal s much s it oncealed;ndwhile t eemed, ithtssymbolicevelation,odemandhat e tear he eil, hat e revealhemysteriesehindt,thatrightlyit larityepthe ye n hrallndresistedurtherenetrationibid).The viewing tself ecomes thereasonwhyone cannot ee.This is whatNietzsche alls inanother assage,the"supreme ndproperlyeri-ous taskofart"(p. 3-94). That s,the rescuing heeyefrom azinginto hehorrorsofnight nd releasing hesubject,with hehealingbalm of illusion, rom he con-vulsivestirringsf the will" (ibid). Nietzschesays that f we transferhispheno-menon o theanalogous processof thetragic rtist,we will understandhegenesis

of thetragicmythcf.p. 114). I would like,however, o transfertto TheBirth fTragedytselfnorder o substantiate yclaimthatNietzsche swriting ragedy.How Tragedy is effectedn The Birthof Tragedy

Inorder oshowfully heprocessbywhichNietzschebrings bout thetragic f-fect n TheBirth f Tragedy twould be necessary, irst,o go throughhe entirework and show how he makes theduplicity,which characterizesragedy, resent.One would havetobeginwith heveryfirstentence.We shallhavegainedmuch or he cience f esthetics henwe have ucceedednper-ceiving irectly,ndnot nly hroughogical easoning,hat rtderives ts ontinuousdevelopmentromhe ualityf heApollinendDionysiac;..(p. 14).We must ivethis entence newinteipretation.he duplicitysnot, ccordingoourview,theduplicity etweenApollo and Dionysus,but before ll else within heApollian ndtheDionysian espectively.newouldthenhaveto interprethiswork nsuch a wayto show that very istinctionhat s asserted yNietzsche,ncludinghismostfamous ne,is at the ame timedenied nd deniednot hrough versightrlackofconsistency,utdeliberatelyecause Nietzsche sadheringo the ogicof the ragic.A logic,which xpresses he contradictionntheheart ftheworld".1515Thisfamouspposition,hich egins y omparinghis o theirualityo the ualityofthe exes p. 14)ends ntheirfraternalond" p. 113).Thereversalndundoingf theposited istinctionouldnot eclearer.

RivistaPortugui-sa eI-'ilosoiia,57 2001, 63-71



8/12

Listening oNietzsche 67

I will not pursuethis full-fledged nalysis. Ratherthan thistypeof formalanalysis, want to confinemyself o showingthatThe Birth f Tragedy mbodieswhatNietzsche himselfdentifiess the "content fthetragicmyth", amely, anepic event hatglorifies hestruggling ero" p. 114). I will showthisby identify-ingthetragicheroof TheBirth f Tragedy, yshowing hestrugglehathe is en-gaged inand showing hathis fate s in fact tragicdeath. For it s preciselyn ourrejoicing n the annihilation f the herothatthetragiceffect s achieved. It is inseeinga neworder mergefrom hedeath ofthe old that he aesthetic xperienceoftragedyonsists.The tragichero of The Birth fTragedy s notGreektragedytself,lthoughtstragicdeath s also recorded.Greektragedy s too far removed from hemodernreader.He cannot identify imselfwithit and thereforetsdeathcannot be per-ceivedas tragic.The tragichero s Socrates,butnot so much Socrates hehistoricalindividual,s Socratesrepresentingtype.Nietzschewants oexplain he nfluenceof Socrates,which extends o Nietzsche'sown time and indeed"beyond" p. 71).Nietzschemakes clearthat o give thefigure f Socratesthiskindofweight, .e. tomake t n "epic event"we cannot estricthemeaning o thehistoricalocrates.Ifwewish o considerocratess one ofthese harioteersf our wn nd ll otherul-tures, e need nly eehim sthe rototypef new ndunimaginedife-form,he ro-totypef heoretical anp.72).

It is this heoreticalmanwho is thetruehero ofthepiece. He is the descendentofSocrates, hecitizen fAlexandrian ulture.Let us listen o Nietzsche's description f the struggle etweenSocratesandDionysus, n order o identifytsmain elements.But ocrates as thatecondpectatorhodidnot nderstandhe lder ragedynd here-fore hose o gnoret; n eaguewith im, uripidesared o becomeheheraldf newcreativity.f t was this hat estroyedhe lder ragedy,hen estheticocratismstheprincipleehindts eathdasmrderischerinzip].ut n o fars the attle asdirectedagainstheDionysiaclementsfthe lderpart, e may all Socrateshe pponentfDionysus,henewOrpheus ho roseup against ionysusnd, lthoughestinedo betornopiecesbytheMaenads ftheAthenianourt,ut hepowerfulodtoflight.hegod, s whenhe tiedLycurgus,ing f theEdoni, scapednto hedepthfthe ea,themysticalloodsf secretult hat asgraduallyocoverhewholeworldp.64).We see in thisquotethebasic patternhat llows thetragic nsight o emerge.Socratesopposes Dionysus; he struggles gainsthim. Reason cannot,however,comprehendheirrational;t can onlyexpel itand define tself veragainst t.Atthe sametimeSocrates s structurallydentified ithDionysus.Thatis,Socrates sexactly ikeDionysus,"destined o be torn o pieces bytheMaenads ofthe Athe-niancourt, .." Third,his expulsionof Dionysusensuresthe returnf Dionysus.Dionysussimplyhideshimselfn "themystical loodsofa secret ultthatwas gra-

dually ocoverthewhole world."We can examinethispatternn a bitmore detail.How exactlydoes Socratesoppose Dionysus?What forms oes theopposition ake?How does DionysusworkRevista ortuguesape E/losoj/a, 7 2001 ,63-71



9/12

68 Jeremiah Alberg

his return? inally,we need to raise thequestionof thistroublingdentificationbetween hefigure fSocrates nd thefigure fDionysus.Nietzschetells us thatGreektragedydied tragically, ied by suicide, in con-sequenceof an irreconcilable onflict. twas originally uripideswho foughthisdeath-strugglef tragedy.But Euripides s "merely mask" for Socrates p. 60).Euripidesfought nd vanquishedAeschyleantragedywitha Socratictendency,tendencywhichprecedesthehistorical ocrates. For Socratesthetragic rt neverevenappears 'to tell what's true'" p. 68). Thereforet mustbe rejected.Nietzscheis claiming hatSocrates, nd afterhim thewhole philosophic radition,made noattempto getto the heartof tragedy.Ratherhe rejected t,fought gainst t andexpelled t. And inrejecting ragedy,heyrejected hemeansbywhichthey ouldhave access to thisdeepertruth,o therealitywhich ragedy epresents.t is only nthisway thatwe can makesense of Nietzsche's nearly ncredible laim to be thefirst opresent coherentheory ftragedy.Thus we have a new antithesis "theDionysiacand theSocratic, nd that on-flictwas to be the downfallof Greektragedy" p. 60). Socratesexpels Dionysianpessimismwith heoreticalptimism. his optimismonsists nthe threefold eliefthat: Virtue s knowledge, ll sins arise from gnorance, he virtuousman is thehappyman" (p. 69). These positions re notunfamiliar, hat is unfamiliars thegenealogythatNietzschegives them.They do not stem, ccordingto Nietzsche,from ny insight ntotheGood, rather heystemfrom turningway from hedeeper ruth fDionysusand from heattempto expel it.Optimism s theweaponSocratesusestoexpeltheDionysian.Socrates ucceeds inhis struggle gainst heDionysian.For a while at least,heis able to make"existenceappear intelligiblend consequentlyustified" p. 73).What followsfrom ocrates s the wholehistoryf Philosophyn its widest enseThatis,the whole story fknowledge nd itsdevelopment. Waves ofphilosophi-cal schools emergedand vanishedone after he other" ibid), is Nietzsche's de-scription. n thisway Socrates becomes the turning-point,he vortexof worldhistory"ibid).Nietzsche feelsthat fthe ncredible orce fSocraticoptimism adnot been there o use theenergies hat tdid, thepracticalpessimism ould havelead to "a terrible thic ofgenocidethrough ity" p. 74). It is art n theform fscienceorreligion hat reventhis breath fpestilence" bid).But thescience of thetheoreticalmanproceedsto its limits,where theopti-mismessentialto logic collapses" (ibid). Before thetheoreticalman arisespreci-selywhat rosebeforeEuripides ittingnthe heatrenAthens the neffable.If he sees here, o hisdismay,how logictwists round tself nd finally ites tself nthetail theredawns a new form f knowledge,tragicknowledge,which needs ait as bothprotectionndremedy,fwe are tobear it p. 75).The wide ocean of knowledgeontowhichSocrates launched Western ivili-zationhas a paradoxicaleffect. hat is,modernman sees the"limits"of this So-cratic ove in its imitlessnessnd thereforeearchesfor coast inthisocean. It isprecisely he limitlessness f the search thatteachesmodernman its limitsTheRevista ortuguesadeFlosoiia, 57 2001),63-71



10/12

Listening o Nietzsche 69

limitlessness fSocrates s another orm foptimism,n optimism ounded n thedelusionoflimitless ower cf.pp.70-71).I would like totake one specific xamplefromNietzsche'sanalysisof the heo-retical human and Alexandrianculture o show how the exclusionof Dionysusleads to the culture's downfall nd the return f Dionysus.NietzschearguesthatAlexandrian ulture, he culture f Socrates,needsslavery norder o continue nexistence.At the same time thisculture, hroughtstheorizing, enies this need.Does this need exist because philosophersneed slaves to do theirmenialtasks,whilethey pendtheir ime n theleisurenecessaryforphilosophy? erhaps, utthink he reason s deeper.A culture uilton the exclusionof theDionysian s builton the llusion hat tsparticular orm f violence s better han heDionysianform,when n fact hey rethe samething. hus,for his ociety o continuenexistence,social forms re requiredwhich both reflect nd hide theexpulsionof theDiony-sian. In a societywheresome are slaves and some are free, herewill also exist areligion ndmythhat llow people tobelieve,without ancor r bitternesss longas themythholds,that ome humans are bornslaves and some are born free. norder o keep up thedistinction etween Socratesand Dionysus,one also need asociologicaldistinction etween laves and free.As this atter istinctionetsdis-solved through he Socraticprojectthatemphasizesthe dignity f humans, heformeristinctionlso getsundercut.

Science and theculturewhich nimates tonlyworks o longas it has universalclaims,but these claimsgetundercuthroughheanalysisof the imits f the con-ditions f knowledge.This is thenature fthe "'breach'" inmodern ulture, hat"'theoretical an takesfrightt hisconsequences" p. 88).Al the ame imehe feelshow a culture asedon theprinciplef sciencemust erishonce tbeginsobecomellogical,o lee ts wn onsequencesp.89).It isNietzsche'sartistic hilosophy rphilosophic rt hat eveals n a universalmannerheundoing ftheuniversal laims ofscience.

The DilemmaI would like to back away a bitfrom he textnow and give my explanation fwhatNietzschehasaccomplishedbyhis "art"which salso a theory fart.He has shown how Socrates, ndwithhimthewholephilosophical radition,srooted nan expulsionof the rrational orces fDionysus.He has verybriefly,utalso brilliantlyhownhow thisexpulsionensuresthe return f thatwhich is ex-pulsed.The culturebuilton logic becomes illogicaland is thus ead to thetragicinsightndopento the rebirthftragedy.f one follows heargumentne sees thatNietzschehas very skillfullyed thereader o thefollowing osition:1) One canacceptNietzsche'sposition,which s basicallya rejection f Socrates, .e. a rejec-tionoftherejection f Dionysusand followNietzsche's invitation, hichendsthework,"to sacrifice"in the templeof Dionysus and Apollo. 2) One can rejectNietzsche'sanalysisand side withSocrates. Socratesor Nietzsche?But thechoice

RevivaPortuguesadeEilosoeia, 57 2001 ,63-71



11/12

70 Jl'RIlMIAH L Al.BHRC,

is not choice. or o sidewith ocratess still o sidewith he ejectionfDiony-susand hus o ensure he eturnfDionysus. hus ne's choice sbetween iony-sus or... Dionysus. ocrates nd theculture e represents,ecomes 2000yeardetourhat omes ack othe neffablerom hich tbegan.Nietzsche new,ven s hepublishedt, hatTheBirthf Tragedy ouldnotbe accepted yother cholarsnhis field.As Nietzsche rote o his ownteacherafter othearingnythingormore han monthftertspublication:Thebook,after ll is somethingfa manifesto,nd the ast hingt nvitess silence".16l-mostimmediatelyt drew a scathing ttackfiomUlrich von Wilamowitz--Moellendorffntitledukunftsphilologie.ccordingomy nalysis,his ttackswhatNietzsche esired. ither ejectionrpassionatecceptance ecause n theend heyre he ame hing.Its here notherlternative?t thinkhat here s. To keepwithinhe imits fthis ssay, llow me to simply uggestt, nstead fdevelopingt as fully s itdeserves. hewayout f he ilemmanvolvesxploringhenature fthe dentity,assertedyNietzsche,etween ocratesndDionysus.s this implynarbitraryidentificationadebyNietzsche tthebeginningf hisargumento ensure hattwould nd here with here eing o realdifferenceetweenhe hoice or ocra-tesor the hoiceforDionysus? do not hinkt s simplyrbitrary.emust n-derstandponwhat he ssertionf theirdentitys based. t is basedon thefactthat oth,ocrates ndDionysus,re hevictimsfviolence. ocratess thevictimofthe rowdnAthensndDionysuss the ne, ofwhommarvelous ythselatethat e was dismemberedy heTitans"p. 52).Attheheart fthemythfDiony-sus s a victim f violence ndNietzschesmisleadinghenhesays hat he dis-memberment,hetrueDionysiacuffering,mounts o a transformationnto ir,water,arth ndfire,ndthatwe should hereforeee the onditionf ndividua-tion s the ourcendoriginf all sufferingp. 52) Thesource ndprimal roundofall sufferings rather obviolence. hus,Nietzsche imselfays hat heDio-nysian henomenons Heraclitus'force hat uilds heworld", hat spolemos^striferviolencep. 114).At heheart f hismyths violence.

ConclusionAtthis ointnhisdevelopment,ietzscheresentsisreaders ith he hoicethat outlinedbove Socrates rDionysus. t the ame imehe shows hatheyare, n he nd, he ame hing.hechoice fSocratesimplyeads hrough2000yeardetourhat ringsne backto Dionysus. thinkhatNietzsche s basicallyaccurate,foverlytark,nhisassessment. fter heBirthfTragedy ietzschewilldevelop contrastnwhich he pposing olesdo not ollapse nto achotherandwhich icks pthe trandf Westernulture hich sbasicallygnorednThe

Birth fTragedy,heoppositionetween ionysusnd theCrucified. ere lso16LetterfJanuary0.1872 oRitschl,uotedn ilk nd tem,.91.

Revista ortuguesadeFilosofia,57 2001 ,63-7



12/12

LlSTlNING O NllTZSCHI 7 1

Nietzsche s correct.We have to choose. ForNietzscheChristianitys partoftheproblem. t does nothelp someone to make the difficulthoices that tragic xis-tenceentails.Rather, t obscures the choices and make the noble choices appearbase. Thus, he rejectsChristianity. ther interpretationsf Christianityan andshouldbe given.1 will notdevelopthispoint. will simply ndbyreturningo theimagewithwhich started. ur choice thenrelates o theimagewithwhich be-gan thisarticle.Odysseus is tied to the mast and this allows him to listen o theSirenswithoutbeing doomed. I interprethe mast as representingome sort oftranscendentalelationship.One form of this transcendentalelationships theCrossof Christ nd itsepistemological ower. t directs ne to look for he victimsandyetdoes notallow one toturn round ndvictimize hevictimizes. In thiswayI think tcanhelpus to readNietzsche nd to be helped byhim.

Revista ortuguesadi:Filosofia,57 2001),63-71

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	main-sur-le-coeur
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Listening to Nietzsche

Documents