Continental Philosophy

Sample Paper

Towards the end of the nineteenth century Germany was in a state of cultural and political turmoil. Having recently been involved in armed conflict with France, Germany was divided between the Prussian imperialists and nationalists and the communists. These two opposing drives seemed capable of tearing the nation apart. As a young professor of philology at the University of Basel, Friedrich Nietzsche perceived this unmistakable decline in society. Looking to an inspired age of cultural enlightenment, he sought to discover a remedy for this disastrous situation. The archaic Greeks had been in a similar situation. Following the Persian Wars, Greek society was torn between the imperial ideas associated with Rome and the individual annihilating ideas associated with India. But, “placed between India and Rome, and under pressure to make a seductive choice, the Greeks succeeded in inventing a new, third form in classical purity” (BT 21). This third choice was tragic art. I would like to look briefly at what the function of art was according to Nietzsche and how tragedy would fulfil this function. In doing so I will look at what he considers to be the only two drives of art and how these come together in the makeup of tragedy and give it is curative power.

In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche mentions, almost in passing, an important function of art: it is “indeed of all the arts through which life is made possible and worth living” (BT 1). His further claim that “for only as an aesthetic phenomenon is existence and the world eternally justified” (BT 5) implies how art and the aesthetic have the power to make life worth living. In conceiving the world aesthetically, Nietzsche clearly had a secular view in mind. Although, he initially talked of existence as aesthetic pleasure for the Homeric pantheon of gods, “thus gods justify the life of men by living it themselves” (BT 3), Nietzsche was a proclaimed atheist. He does not envision a benevolent God active with mankind as Van Gogh was with a painting. Rather we are encouraged to make the

comparison of the force that shapes the world to a playing child who sets down stones here, there, and the next place, and who builds up piles of sand only to knock them down again. [BT 24]

As this implies, the world is not organised by any guiding reason:

for it must be clear to us above all, both to our humiliation and our elevation, is that this whole comedy of art is certainly not performed for us, neither for our edification nor our education, just as we are far from truly being the creators of that world of art. [BT 5]

While it may be humiliating for man not to be part of some divine purpose, mankind is elevated by the fact that it is not restricted this predetermined purpose. Nietzsche warns us, however, that this

is at bottom entirely illusory, because, as knowing creatures, we are not one and identical with the essential being which gives itself pleasure as the creator and spectator of that comedy of art. [BT 5]

Mankind may still perceive themselves and the world as a work of art, in this manner bestowing some form of significance to their existence, realising that this is still illusory.

In his later work, Nietzsche’s viewpoint changes on these matters. Having lost the romantic overtones, he cynically remarks that “as an aesthetic phenomenon existence is still bearable for us” (GS II 107). He attests that perhaps nothing can fully justify existence. Life can only be made bearable by the aesthetic perspective because it grants us

rest from ourselves by looking upon, by looking down upon, ourselves and, from an artistic distance, laughing over ourselves or weeping over ourselves. [GS II 107]

It is by laughter in the face of mankind’s follies and horrors that existence is bearable. Despite this cynical outlook, Nietzsche’s view remained the same: art makes life worth living. Having expounded this function of art, Nietzsche posits two components of art and their union as a culturally enriching art form: the tragedy.

Right at the outset of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche posits that “the continuous evolution of art is bound up with the duality of the Apollinian and the Dionysian” (BT 1). Disappointingly, he regards this as self-evident and offers nothing to back such a claim. Perhaps this is an example of the book being, as Nietzsche himself pointed out, “very convinced and therefore too arrogant to prove its assertions” (BT AC 3). However, the areas of art covered by Apollo and Dionysus, “the Apollinian art of the image-maker or sculptor and the imageless art of music, which is that of Dionysus” (BT 1), comprise everything Nietzsche considered art. Regardless, these are the two forms of art Nietzsche utilises. The products of these gods - Apollo’s plastic art and Dionysus’ music - expose their contrary ends. Apollo favours the boundaries provided by images and he is “the magnificent divine image of the principium individuationis” (BT 1). As an image-maker, Apollo is the god of the illusion that reality is organised by this principle. This beneficially gives the security provided by organisation. Dionysus, on the other hand, destroys boundaries:

each person feels himself to be not simply united, reconciled or merged with his neighbour, but quite literally one with him. [BT 1]

Dionysus excites feelings of pleasure in face of the terror at the lack of boundaries and individuality. Nietzsche believed these contrary forces fought over Greek culture.

Nietzsche asserted that underlying Greek culture was the realisation of the terror of reality. Nietzsche illustrated this with the myth of Silenus who claimed that “the very best thing is utterly beyond [man’s] reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. However, the second best thing for you is: to die soon” (BT 3). In order to hide this terrible concept, Apollinian art initially dominated Greek society. The works of Homer belied reality with illusions of gods, whom, in a certain sense, shared the human condition. In this manner of

employing powerful delusions and intensely pleasurable illusions [the Greeks] gain victory over a terrifying profound view of the world and the most acute sensitivity to suffering. [BT 3]

However, the cults of Dionysus, who were forcibly hidden by the Apollinian, knew the truth that
the whole world of agony is needed in order to compel the individual to generate the releasing and redemptive vision, and then, lost in contemplation of that vision, to sit calmly in his rocking boat in the midst of he sea. [BT 4]

In fact, Apollo’s existence depended on reality’s horror, and Dionysus knew it. Once exposed to this, Apollo could no longer survive without Dionysus, who took charge of Greek society, only to overthrown again by Apollo, and so over time the Apollinian and Dionysian drives successively governed Greek society, until

by a metaphysical miracle of the Hellenic ‘Will’, they appear paired and, in this pairing, finally engender a work of art which is both Dionysian and Apollinian in equal measure: Attic tragedy. [BT 1]

This unique combination of Apollo and Dionysus was a true synthesis of art, taking the best of each and elevating the product new heights.

Nietzsche traces the origin of tragedy to the lyrical poet of Archilochus and his creation of the folk song. The music of the song expresses the Dionysian message of unity, while the song’s words and concepts are Apollinian images. However, in this combination “the word, the image, the concept seeks expression in a manner analogous to music and thereby is subjected to the power of music” (BT 6). The words, then, have a deeper significance being connected with the imageless music. The lyric poet has seized the “primordial unity” with all its terror and contraction and represented it with music, “but by virtue of the fact that interprets music in images, he himself is at rest in the still, calm sea of Apollinian contemplation” (BT 6). This combination of image and music, Apollo and Dionysus, will be utilised fully by the tragic poet.

Looking now at tragedy itself, Nietzsche observes that the Dionysian element initially dominated because “evidence tells us most decisively that tragedy arose from the tragic chorus and was originally chorus and nothing but chorus” (BT 7). Nietzsche, however, contended that the chorus was not simply, as previously thought, “the ideal spectator, or that it represents the people in contrast to the princely region of the stage” (BT 7). It is instead an expression of Dionysus through the chorus’ music. The chorus, in the image of satyr, uses music in order to unify the audience with the primordial unity:

This is the first effect of Dionysian tragedy: state society, indeed all divisions between one human being and another, give way to an overwhelming feeling of unity which leads men back to the heart of nature. [BT 7]

In fact, the audience itself is merged with the chorus and “the whole is just one sublime chorus, either of dancing and singing satyrs, or of those who allow themselves to be represented by these satyrs” (BT 8). Through the music everyone is unified and they become aware of the horror that underlies existence, which merely adds to the excitement of the moment. Eventually, though, the music must stop and the participants are thrown back into every day reality. Having experienced the Dionysian, they now have knowledge of the intrinsic suffering of man. They

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. [BT 7]

Curiously enough, here Nietzsche appears to advocate a cognitive function of art. Participation in the Dionysian element of tragedy gives man knowledge of the inherent suffering of existence. On the other hand, Nietzsche had remarked that “our whole knowledge of art is at bottom entirely illusory” (BT 5). This would certainly fit with his claim of all truth being metaphors in On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense. Either way, faced with this “knowledge”, despair fills the individual. Luckily, there is a cure, for “art alone can re-direct those repulsive thoughts about the terrible or absurd nature of existence into representations with which man can live” (BT 7).

The Apollinian piece of tragedy protects the audience in the form of the tragic hero. “This is where the power of the Apollinian, bent on restoring the almost shattered individual, bursts forth, bringing the healing balm of a blissful deception” (BT 21). The tragic hero makes it appear that tragedy occurs only on the stage. The audience enjoys the performance because they are momentarily deceived into believing only the hero suffers. At this point the Apollinian appears to control the tragedy. However, in the car ride home after the performance, so to speak, Dionysus strikes. Looking back on the tragedy as a whole, the unity in the suffering of the hero and of all man is revealed. In this way, both Apollo and Dionysus give the tragedy its significance: “this insight leads us to understand Greek tragedy as a Dionysian chorus which discharges itself over and over again in an Apollinian world of images” (BT 8). Tragedy has fulfilled its purpose. The audience was exposed to the terrors of human existence, but with such presentation that they were not horrified. Life has been enriched in this manner. The essence of existence has been revealed. The audience was for an instant watching the world over the shoulder of the child in the sand with appreciation. They have just perceived existence, through the tragedy, as an aesthetic phenomenon. Now they should be capable to do it with their own lives. As Nietzsche would shout to them during the performance ‘Take a look! Take a close look! This is your life! This is the hour-hand on the clock of your existence!’ (BT 24).

Nietzsche optimistically believed that a rebirth of tragedy would occur and Germany would discover this as an alternative to nationalism and communism. His hopes of this lay in the operatic works of Richard Wagner, who embodied the ideals of tragedy. As Nietzsche’s relationship with Wagner soured, so did Nietzsche’s optimism in tragedy. He grew disillusioned with tragedy, as reflected in the Gay Science. Tragedy is revealed to have closer connections to reason than he previously claimed. The Birth of Tragedy, however, shows a very different Nietzsche. His hope and enthusiasm are untouched, it would seem, by the very Dionysian terror he believed in. Once disappointment set in, Nietzsche no longer could put his faith in anything. He becomes hell-bent on exposing the kinks in virtually every institution. In effect, he moved from the romantic to the cynical iconoclast. Was it not said that all cynics are merely wounded romantics?

I love Apache! So should you!