Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Agape » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:51 pm

I am trying to figure out the link between Nietzsche's distinctions of the Appollonian/Dionysian and how it relates to his will to power and master/slave morality.

I am writing on nihilism. Firstly I read that his views of nihilism were that he thought the state of nihilism comes from culture leaning too much towards the Appollonian reason and individuality, which hence brought the overbearing of science while at the same time shunning Dionysian tendencies and anything related to the absence of reason. Nihilism then came out of this lack of touch with our Dionysian side.

Now Ive also been reading that he views nihilism as a situation which has come about through the master slave morality. Christianity (one of which) produced slave morality and nihilism and the Last man etc are legacies of this line.

I can see that master slave morality is just a result of the will to power of the masters over the slaves, exploiting the week etc.

I want to know how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power. Am I missing a link or are they two seperate views he happened to postulate over the course of his carreer? #-o #-o #-o
Agape
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:04 pm

Postby Faust » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:35 pm

Agapr - firstly, read the Birth of Tragedy. It's not that long a piece.

Okay - the Appollonians are the slaves, and the Dionysians are the masters.

By the time Christian morality became predominant in Europe, it had been much rationalised - all manner of argumenation, more or less formal, had been applied to it. It was only after this that a coherent Christian morality became evident. This rational treatment is identified with the Appollonian elements in Greek Mythology - but any coherent morality is the result of a rational process. It is this Christian morality that Nietzsche sees as nihilistic, in part because it subordinates "earthly" values to the quest for eternal happiness in heaven. The slaves - the Christians, adopted this morality as a way to check the power of more Dionysians types, whose will to power tends to be uncontrolled by ethical considerations.

Dionysians are said to act more on an unfettered Will to Power - perhaps not rationally, but almost biologically. Personally, I think he takes the analogies here too far. It is, at least, an interesting literary device, which is mostly how he treats it in TBOT.

Nietzsche sometimes writes as if Jesus himself, before all the theologians got ahold of him, created a slave morality, but N also suspects that we don't know the unfiltered Jesus, any more than we may know the unfiltered Socrates.

Nietzsche also objects to pre- or non-Christian morality as well, of course. And N did not originate the idea of the Appollonian/Dionysian dichotomy.

The slaves have their own will to power, by the way, which is expressed by that very morality insofar as it is a brake on powerful men. I'm not sure if the commentary you are reading admits this - everyone has a will to power.

I think this is better seen in later works on Nietzsche's, such as The Genealogy of Morals.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16897
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby Agape » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:08 pm

Thank mate that helps fil in a couple of gaps.

I was chatting to a buddy online about this for probably 2 hours straight and we figured out pretty much what you were saying so it helps that you reiterate it to solidify our thoughts.

We hadent however come up with the bit about the slaves having their own morality...could you expand on this a little. Im interested that they try and 'keep the Dionysiacs down' as this rings truer than ever in society today- social conditioning is very real. Also how is it an expression of their will to power?

Im already begining to read BOT but not got into it yet, I will make it a priority to do so once I get these three essays Im working on out the way (and yes Kant is one of that pack :D). This is for my dissertation but Ive been so engrossed in 'figuring it out' that I have to make sure I get those others out the door first before I plunge headlong into it.

So is everything you were saying in BOT?

Cheers.

Also I was thinking...Would it be faesible to see Dionysus/Apollo as the same (loosely) as Schopenhauer's Will and Representation respectively. I know they may not overlap that neatly but if thinking in broad strokes? Also is Apollo/Dionysus the same as Last man/Overman dichotomy, if not differences?

Gracis.
Agape
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:04 pm

Postby Dan~ » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:29 pm

Being "powerful" automatically suggests influenciality and control, but to have total control over something, and for something to be under total control, is the exact opposite of "freedom". In their quest for more power, they eventually say they will have more control over what happens around them, and thus they call this more "freedom", or invision themselevs feeling more "free" once more powerful. This circular tautology is self-contradicting. I'm so tired of them saying how they want it to all be more free as they make it less free at that very same time, aswel as them wanting to make it more powerful, but in every case it just becomes more dependant, weak, needy and unstable. I guess I remembered the whole lie again, remotely, as I read through a bit of this thread. The power-full do not use up or expend the inherent energy that permiates all reality, and their neutrality allows them to store unlimited energy without waste or specification; these ones are neither slave nor master. I'll go back to ignoring the twisted mess now, or at-least not talking of it.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Fent » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:10 am

Agape wrote:I am trying to figure out the link between Nietzsche's distinctions of the Appollonian/Dionysian and how it relates to his will to power and master/slave morality.

I am writing on nihilism. Firstly I read that his views of nihilism were that he thought the state of nihilism comes from culture leaning too much towards the Appollonian reason and individuality, which hence brought the overbearing of science while at the same time shunning Dionysian tendencies and anything related to the absence of reason. Nihilism then came out of this lack of touch with our Dionysian side.

Now Ive also been reading that he views nihilism as a situation which has come about through the master slave morality. Christianity (one of which) produced slave morality and nihilism and the Last man etc are legacies of this line.

I can see that master slave morality is just a result of the will to power of the masters over the slaves, exploiting the week etc.

I want to know how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power. Am I missing a link or are they two seperate views he happened to postulate over the course of his carreer? #-o #-o #-o


I'd like to add a few more points to Faust's good post.

Nihilism has different meanings depending on the context it is used in. There is nihilism as in Platonism and Christianity due to their belief in an 'other-worldly' realm. And nihilism as in when these two metaphysical systems die; because knowledge cannot find a static point of departure once the previous truths have been devalued.
Nevertheless, all Nietzsche's use of the term did indeed come from too much emphasis on the Appollian. Socrates is nihilism's instigator. He led people on a search for truth which continually questions existing truths, which in turn never allows a static truth to exist, this is Christianity's downfall. Once the Renaissance arrives, scepticism in regards to Christian morality began to surface. After Christianity died out, nihilism in a different form arises, that of no solid point of departure for truth to launch itself from. In a nutshell, the cultivation of truthfulness leads to nihilism.

Agape wrote
Also I was thinking...Would it be faesible to see Dionysus/Apollo as the same (loosely) as Schopenhauer's Will and Representation respectively. I know they may not overlap that neatly but if thinking in broad strokes? Also is Apollo/Dionysus the same as Last man/Overman dichotomy, if not differences?


Schopenhauer, to my knowledge, gets his idea from a single strand of Kantian thought; that of human beings possessing an 'intelligible character'. The unfolding of this 'intelligible charcter' is Schopenhauer's 'Will'.
Fent
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:03 am
Location: Australia

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Twilight of the Idols » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:41 am

The division between Kant and Schopenhauer is that while Kant took the noumenal to be unknowable, Schopenhauer says it is knowable via intuition. The inference is that the will itself is the noumenal. "World as will and representation" is for Schopenhauer the same as Kant's "world as noumena and phenomena," if you will, but with this distinction in mind.
User avatar
Twilight of the Idols
Jenseits von Gut und Böse
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:25 am

Postby Xunzian » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:30 am

I wouldn't go that far. The Dionysians are every bit as much slaves as the Apollonians. It is those that have a balance between the two that are the masters. Now, Nietzsche made a point of saying that society is presently biased towards the Apollonian so it follows that those with a more Dionysian bent are bound to thrive but balance was the overall message.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10462
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Dan~ » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:34 am

Fent wrote:
Agape wrote:I am trying to figure out the link between Nietzsche's distinctions of the Appollonian/Dionysian and how it relates to his will to power and master/slave morality.

I am writing on nihilism. Firstly I read that his views of nihilism were that he thought the state of nihilism comes from culture leaning too much towards the Appollonian reason and individuality, which hence brought the overbearing of science while at the same time shunning Dionysian tendencies and anything related to the absence of reason. Nihilism then came out of this lack of touch with our Dionysian side.

Now Ive also been reading that he views nihilism as a situation which has come about through the master slave morality. Christianity (one of which) produced slave morality and nihilism and the Last man etc are legacies of this line.

I can see that master slave morality is just a result of the will to power of the masters over the slaves, exploiting the week etc.

I want to know how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power. Am I missing a link or are they two seperate views he happened to postulate over the course of his carreer? #-o #-o #-o


I'd like to add a few more points to Faust's good post.

Nihilism has different meanings depending on the context it is used in. There is nihilism as in Platonism and Christianity due to their belief in an 'other-worldly' realm. And nihilism as in when these two metaphysical systems die; because knowledge cannot find a static point of departure once the previous truths have been devalued.
Nevertheless, all Nietzsche's use of the term did indeed come from too much emphasis on the Appollian. Socrates is nihilism's instigator. He led people on a search for truth which continually questions existing truths, which in turn never allows a static truth to exist, this is Christianity's downfall. Once the Renaissance arrives, scepticism in regards to Christian morality began to surface. After Christianity died out, nihilism in a different form arises, that of no solid point of departure for truth to launch itself from. In a nutshell, the cultivation of truthfulness leads to nihilism.


What does truth matter at all?
Its authority is what is most appealing about it. It is akin to universal law, undeniable and omnipresent forcefulness. But without it having this "solid" point to launch from, to pull towards, do direct and to essentially control the mind in totality of complete belief, man has no way to respond to the uncontrolled freedoms outside of all belief and all limits of finite meaning/purpose. And so if a man ever reaches that point, he either goes blind, dies, or goes back into his cage. Freedom and human life don't really mix well together at all, for man is religion, and religion never makes one more free or really "saved" from their own rubbish.


The greek "philosophers" accepted many foolish things. At that time, religion and philosophy was not separate, and it was merely an extention of the general rationalism and moralism aswel as the metaphysics of the time...
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10129
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Postby Faust » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:10 pm

Xunzian - I'm, wondering if that is your view, or if you are ascribing it to Nietzsche. Nietszche did state that a balance results in a good greek tragedy, but I don't read him as meaning that it makes for a good human.

I do agree with what is at least a tangential point to Dan~'s, although Nietzsche himself is not always consistent in this - that the powerful need not exercise their power, and certainly have no reason to much of the time. Also that Truth is a political idea. And a very handy one.

Agape - I mean that the masses truned the tables on their masters using Christianity - to wit: the conflicts between kings and popes throughout the Middle Ages. Sometimes the popes won. One reason Britain came up with a Magna Charta so soon is that papal influence was not effective. Too many pagans there, anyway.

Also, maybe tangential to Fent's point - Nietzsche uses the word "nihilism" in more than one sense, which can be confusing. N uses nihilism as a tool himself. As in Fent's example, it is actually nihilistic to seek a "dynamic" truth, which is also what Nietzsche does. Nietzsche's case for this is a bit longwinded, and is found everywhere in his writing, on any subject.

The trick is to find out what is being degraded, what is decaying as a result. A nihilistic analyisis will always degrade something - it's up to the individual to decide on what to turn this weapon.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16897
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby Xunzian » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:49 pm

He talked about the Dionysian societies that failed, like the Babylonians I believe. The genius of the Greeks was in finding a balance between the two as exemplified in their tragedy. Nietzsche viewed creativity and artistry as the highest expression of humanity and he viewed tragedy as the highest form of art. I don't think that it is too far a stretch to say that he felt the uebermensch was a mixture between the two.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10462
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Postby Faust » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:53 pm

Mebbe.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16897
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby Agape » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:04 pm

I agre with you Xunzian, and this is the direction I am going to take my dissertation. I am going to speak of the pitfalls of an unhealthy Apollonian bent (Socrates and Western society leading us into nihilism) as well as that of the untamed Dionysian, then bring about the taming of the two in what results in the Ubermench.
Agape
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:04 pm

Postby Dionysus » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:00 pm

Xunzian wrote:He talked about the Dionysian societies that failed, like the Babylonians I believe. The genius of the Greeks was in finding a balance between the two as exemplified in their tragedy. Nietzsche viewed creativity and artistry as the highest expression of humanity and he viewed tragedy as the highest form of art. I don't think that it is too far a stretch to say that he felt the uebermensch was a mixture between the two.


I think it would be a mistake to take the concept of the Overman as anything more than a rhetorical device, and certainly erroneous to consider it the main point of Nietzsche's philosophy. This leads one down the road of labeling Nietzsche a virtue ethicist as some have already done, which he most certainly wasn't, despising as he did the "perfectors of men".

Also, I think we ought to pay more attention to Nietzsche's conception of the self as a biological and psychological multiplicity, lest we mistake him for an individualist, which he also wasn't.
Rise up!
(to the Shining --)
Live long, live now!
Rise up!
(to the Shining --)
Don't be blinded by fools again
Fools again...
Dionysus
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:55 am

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:13 pm

Agape wrote:I am trying to figure out the link between Nietzsche's distinctions of the Appollonian/Dionysian and how it relates to his will to power and master/slave morality.

I am writing on nihilism. Firstly I read that his views of nihilism were that he thought the state of nihilism comes from culture leaning too much towards the Appollonian reason and individuality, which hence brought the overbearing of science while at the same time shunning Dionysian tendencies and anything related to the absence of reason. Nihilism then came out of this lack of touch with our Dionysian side.

Now Ive also been reading that he views nihilism as a situation which has come about through the master slave morality. Christianity (one of which) produced slave morality and nihilism and the Last man etc are legacies of this line.

I can see that master slave morality is just a result of the will to power of the masters over the slaves, exploiting the week etc.

I want to know how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power. Am I missing a link or are they two seperate views he happened to postulate over the course of his carreer? #-o #-o #-o

There is no such thing in Nietzsche as "master slave morality".
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Agape » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:39 pm

A most persuasive thesis, Sauwelios :o; forgive my passive aggressive quip but would you care to back that up with some useful reasoning as to how you came to such a conclusion so as we too might perhaps be persuaded as to your viewpoint.
Agape
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:13 am

Agape wrote:A most persuasive thesis, Sauwelios :o; forgive my passive aggressive quip but would you care to back that up with some useful reasoning as to how you came to such a conclusion so as we too might perhaps be persuaded as to your viewpoint.

Well, for one thing, Nietzsche, as far as I know, never uses the phrase "master slave morality". Where did you get that phrase anyway - Wikipedia? But Wikipedia writes "master-slave morality", which we could rewrite as "master/slave morality". And indeed, you Initially do write it this way. I suppose that what is meant by this phrase is "the interplay between master morality and slave morality" - a dynamic. But then you say:

"Ive also been reading that he views nihilism as a situation which has come about through the master slave morality."

If you mean "through the master/slave dynamic" or "through the interplay between master and slave morality", I think you're wrong: it has come about through slave and herd morality - which are not one and the same! George Morgan says of these two moralities:

"The flock [die Heerde], needing leaders, was seduced by decadents, its morality perverted in the direction of decadence ideals. But in the course of time herd instincts proved more powerful: the decay of ascetic Christianity and the rise of democratic humanitarianism was a return of Flock Morality to its natural form. Nietzsche believed that Flock Morality is the most important element in present morals, and that this fact threatens ultimate stagnation for humanity."
[Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, page 161.]

The ascetic priest, too, was too extreme for the herd (and of course he was himself a kind of nobleman: a "spiritual nobleman", a person closer to God than most people, than "laymen").

Anyway, this is how Nietzsche ultimately describes nihilism:

"Supposing that what is at any rate believed to be the "truth" really is true, and the meaning of all culture is the reduction of the beast of prey "man" to a tame and civilized animal, a domestic animal, then one would undoubtedly have to regard all those instincts of reaction and ressentiment through whose aid the noble races and their ideals were finally confounded and overthrown [that is, slave instincts, not herd instincts] as the actual instruments of culture; which is not to say that the bearers of these instincts themselves represent culture. Rather is the reverse not merely probable—no! today it is palpable! These bearers of the oppressive instincts that thirst for reprisal, the descendants of every kind of European and non-European slavery, and especially of the entire pre-Aryan populace—they represent the regression of mankind! These "instruments of culture" are a disgrace to man and rather an accusation and counterargument against "culture" in general! One may be quite justified in continuing to fear the blond beast at the core of all noble races and in being on one's guard against it: but who would not a hundred times sooner fear where one can also admire than not fear but be permanently condemned to the repellent sight of the ill-constituted, dwarfed, atrophied, and poisoned? And is that not our fate? What today constitutes our antipathy to "man"?—for we suffer from man, beyond doubt.
Not fear; rather that we no longer have anything left to fear in man; that the maggot "man" is swarming in the foreground; that the "tame man," the hopelessly mediocre and insipid man, has already learned to feel himself as the goal and zenith, as the meaning of history, as "higher man"—that he has indeed a certain right to feel thus, insofar as he feels himself elevated above the surfeit of ill-constituted, sickly, weary and exhausted people of which Europe is beginning to stink today, as something at least relatively well-constituted, at least still capable of living, at least affirming life.

[...]

"Here precisely is what has become a fatality for Europe—together with the fear of man we have also lost our love of him, our reverence for him, our hopes for him, even the will to him. The sight of man now makes us weary—what is nihilism today if it is not that?— We are weary of man."
[Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, 1, 11-12.]

The part I have made bold describes the herd type. As you can tell, Nietzsche ranks this type higher than the slave type. Indeed, Nietzsche believed in the desirability of "a strong and healthily consolidated mediocrity" [The Antichrist(ian), section 57]. Such a mediocrity is the foundation of the culture pyramid ("culture" not in the sense used above, though...):

"A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its first presupposition is a strong and healthily consolidated mediocrity."

This mediocrity would consists of "slaves", it is true; but not resentful slaves, but rather like the serfs of medieval times:

"The third [and bottom] layer of the social structure is that of the rural peasantry, this is the function of fecundity and prosperity, this class can be associated with the class of slaves - although this class is very different to the slave class of the early modern era and is probably best thought of as an underclass."
[Philip Quadrio, Odhinn and Tyr.]

The dropouts of the social structure (from all three layers), those who rank below the bottom, are what Nietzsche calls the chandalas: the pariahs, outcasts, the truly hated (for the mediocre are just despised: despised and loved). It is from these dropouts that slave morality, the slave instinct of resentment, arises:

"Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge... The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of "equal" rights... What is bad? But I have said this already: all that is born of weakness, of envy, of revenge.— The anarchist and the Christian have the same origin..."
[Nietzsche, ibid.]

This origin is shared by Marx and Paul.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:31 am

As for your question "how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power", this is a pretty difficult question. Nietzsche's Apollo was subsumed by his Dionysus in his later understanding, so that the imposition of Form (Being) on the flux of Becoming was understood as a very Dionysian - forceful - act. Thus his later Dionysus (an Apollinian Dionysus) was antithesised with Christ (Dionysus versus the "Crucified") - who was understood as a decadent form of Dionysus.

Said imposition of Form on the flux may even be said to be (of) the essence of the will to power:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/gold/php ... 9&t=159843
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Impious » Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:17 am

Sauwelios wrote:As for your question "how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power", this is a pretty difficult question. Nietzsche's Apollo was subsumed by his Dionysus in his later understanding, so that the imposition of Form (Being) on the flux of Becoming was understood as a very Dionysian - forceful - act. Thus his later Dionysus (an Apollinian Dionysus) was antithesised with Christ (Dionysus versus the "Crucified") - who was understood as a decadent form of Dionysus.

Said imposition of Form on the flux may even be said to be (of) the essence of the will to power:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/gold/php ... 9&t=159843


Dionysus is the god of superabundance (or ascending life), Apollo the god of moderation (or descending life). Descending life only creates to the extent that it satisfies its will to conserve.

EDIT: this theory is retarded :oops:
Last edited by Impious on Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let the music get you angelic just to gain that bliss. :)
User avatar
Impious
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Australia, Sydney

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:33 pm

Impious wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:As for your question "how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power", this is a pretty difficult question. Nietzsche's Apollo was subsumed by his Dionysus in his later understanding, so that the imposition of Form (Being) on the flux of Becoming was understood as a very Dionysian - forceful - act. Thus his later Dionysus (an Apollinian Dionysus) was antithesised with Christ (Dionysus versus the "Crucified") - who was understood as a decadent form of Dionysus.

Said imposition of Form on the flux may even be said to be (of) the essence of the will to power:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/gold/php ... 9&t=159843


Dionysus is the god of superabundance (or ascending life), Apollo the god of moderation (or descending life). Descending life only creates to the extent that it satisfies its will to conserve.

Sorry, but this is real bullshit. Moderation (as opposed to mediocrity!) is an expression of strength - yes, of superabundance: of overflowing strength which is applied precisely to dam this overflowing of strength.

Nay, it is not so simple as "Dionysus is good, Apollo is bad"; the grand style is Apollinian! It is the imposition of Order on the chaos of existence, not "pure chaos" or another pure folly.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:08 am

This, my dear Impious, is why you must read The Will to Power.

In section 940, the camel, lion and child are described:

"The teaching meden agan ["nothing in excess"] applies to men of overflowing strength--not to the mediocre. The enkrateia ["temperance"] and askesis ["ascetic exercise"] is only a stage toward the heights: the "golden nature" is higher.
"Thou shalt"--unconditional obedience in Stoics, in the Christian and Arab orders, in the philosophy of Kant (it is immaterial whether to a superior or to a concept).
Higher than "thou shalt" is "I will" (the heroes); higher than "I will" stands: "I am" (the gods of the Greeks).
The barbarian gods express nothing of the pleasure of restraint--are neither simple nor frivolous nor moderate."
[section 940, entire, with added emphasis.]

This is why I said Nietzsche's later Dionysus - the one antithesised with the "Crucified One", not with Apollo - was an Apollinian Dionysus. For all the Olympian gods were Apollinian gods, as Nietzsche stated in The Birth of Tragedy. It is also in that book that he distinguishes between the Greek (Apollinian) Dionysus and the barbarian Dionysus.

The lion (or tiger) must temper himself: only then can he reach the "I am" of the Olympians:

"[P]recisely to the hero is beauty the hardest thing of all. Unattainable is beauty by all ardent wills [and all strength is strength of will: so overflowing strength means overflowing will, all-too-ardent will].
[...]
The virtue of the pillar shalt thou strive after: more beautiful doth it ever become, and more graceful - but internally harder and more sustaining - the higher it riseth [and how Apollinian is that!]."
[Zarathustra, Of the Sublime Ones.]

The grand style is of course concerned with beauty:

""[B]ecoming more beautiful" is a consequence of enhanced strength. Becoming more beautiful as the expression of a victorious will [the victory of the striving and struggling hero], of increased co-ordination, of a harmonizing of all the strong desires, of an infallibly perpendicular stress. Logical and geometrical simplification is a consequence of enhancement of strength: conversely the apprehension of such a simplification again enhances the feeling of strength-- High point of the development: the grand style.
Ugliness signifies the decadence of a type, contradiction and lack of co-ordination among the inner desires--signifies a decline in organizing strength, in "will," to speak psychologically."
[WtP 800, with added emphasis.]

Thus the barbarian, though evidently superior to the mediocre, is still relatively "weak". The feeling of superiority of the Greek over the barbarian was not originally a feeling of moral superiority; it was a feeling of aesthetic superiority (the word barbaros is an onomatopoea reflecting the "bar bar" sounds the outlanders seemed to make to the Greeks).
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Impious » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:34 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Impious wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:As for your question "how the Appollo/Dionysus theory relates to the master slave morality or how the formaer relates to the Will to power", this is a pretty difficult question. Nietzsche's Apollo was subsumed by his Dionysus in his later understanding, so that the imposition of Form (Being) on the flux of Becoming was understood as a very Dionysian - forceful - act. Thus his later Dionysus (an Apollinian Dionysus) was antithesised with Christ (Dionysus versus the "Crucified") - who was understood as a decadent form of Dionysus.

Said imposition of Form on the flux may even be said to be (of) the essence of the will to power:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/gold/php ... 9&t=159843


Dionysus is the god of superabundance (or ascending life), Apollo the god of moderation (or descending life). Descending life only creates to the extent that it satisfies its will to conserve.

Sorry, but this is real bullshit.


You're right. What I said was retarded. Especially considering that the exercise of moderation is what separates the ubermensch from the blond beast. I wasn't thinking at my best when I wrote it. But I still stand by my signature.
Let the music get you angelic just to gain that bliss. :)
User avatar
Impious
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Australia, Sydney

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:01 pm

Impious wrote:[T]he exercise of moderation is what separates the ubermensch from the blond beast.

We may indeed compare the relation blond beast - Ãœbermensch to the relation Dionysus - Apollo:

"[T]he same men who are held so sternly in check inter pares by custom, respect, usage, gratitude, and even more by mutual suspicion and jealousy, and who on the other hand in their relations with one another show themselves so resourceful in consideration, self-control, delicacy, loyalty, pride, and friendship—once they go outside, where the strange, the stranger is found, they are not much better than uncaged beasts of prey. There they savor a freedom from all social constraints, they compensate themselves in the wilderness for the tension engendered by protracted confinement and enclosure within the peace of society, they go back to the innocent conscience of the beast of prey, as triumphant monsters who perhaps emerge from an atrocious procession of murder, arson, rape, and torture, exhilarated and undisturbed of soul, as if it were no more than a student's prank, convinced they have provided the poets with a lot more material for song and praise. One cannot fail to see at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness: the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings—they all shared this need."
[Genealogy I, 11.]

"[L]est the Apollinian tendency freeze all form into Egyptian rigidity, and in attempting to prescribe its orbit to each particular wave inhibit the movement of the lake, the Dionysian flood tide periodically destroys all the little circles in which the Apollinian will would confine Hellenism."
[Birth of Tragedy 9.]

It is this extreme of the Apollinian, this "Egyptian rigidity", of which most people think when they juxtapose Dionysus and Apollo in favour of the former. Indeed, it seems that you yourself made this "mistake".

Nietzsche ties Egyptianism with Plato:

"We have paid dearly for the fact that this Athenian got his schooling from the Egyptians (or from the Jews in Egypt?)."
[Twilight, Ancients, 2.]

Here we see Plato, the Jews, and Christianity together - Christianity, which to most "Nietzscheans" is the epitome of "Apollinianism". But this has little to do with the Apollo of the Greeks:

"The Bacchae acknowledges the failure of Euripides' dramatic intentions when, in fact, these had already succeeded: Dionysus had already been driven from the tragic stage by a daemonic power speaking through Euripides. For in a certain sense Euripides was but a mask, while the divinity which spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo but a brand new daemon called Socrates. Thenceforward the real antagonism was to be between Dionysian spirit and the Socratic, and tragedy was to perish in the conflict.
[BT 12, with added emphasis.]

Here we may again compare two relations: Judaism - Christianity and Socrates - Plato. As Nietzsche writes;

"It [dialectic] can only be self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. One must have to enforce one's right: until one reaches that point, one makes no use of it. The Jews were dialecticians for that reason; Reynard the Fox was one: what? and Socrates was as well?"
[Twilight, Socrates, 6.]

Of course, when Nietzsche lists "the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings", it's easy to see what they have in common: they were all warriors at root (and this "root" is the blond beast!).

"I have given to understand how it was that Socrates could repel: it is therefore all the more necessary to explain his fascination.— That he discovered a new kind of agon, that he became its first fencing master for the noble circles of Athens, is one point. He fascinated by appealing to the agonistic impulse of the Greeks—he introduced a variation into the wrestling match between young men and youths."
[ibid., 8.]

This illustrates how far the agonistic impulse had strayed from its root, which was not the "wrestling match between young men and youths", but the deadly war between Greeks and Trojans, for example. At this point, there were only two real powers left in Greece: Athens and Sparta. And Socrates lived in Athens. What wonder that Athens declined around this time, leaving only Sparta as a true militaristic polis.

This is why I wrote recently, on a certain message board, in reply to someone who said "[a]ll of his [the Aryan's] arts begin as ancillaries to his warfare";

"I agree. And I say his arts should not be allowed to become too independent from his warfare."

It was this same person to whom I wrote the above in reply, who once wrote:

"Dance, like philosophy, began with physical combat. The first to keep the body in trim, the second to do the same for the mind."

Let us lead dance and philosophy back to physical combat!

"Lead, like me, the flown-away virtue back to the earth - yea, back to body and life: that it may give to the earth its meaning, a human meaning!"
[Zarathustra, Of the Bestowing Virtue, 2.]

This meaning is of course the Ü b e r m e n s c h.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby promethean75 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:05 pm

Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge... The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of "equal" rights... What is bad? But I have said this already: all that is born of weakness, of envy, of revenge.— The anarchist and the Christian have the same origin..."
[Nietzsche, ibid.]


We fixin to get back into this one, ya'll. Lemme take a shower and find me a coffee shop. Jakob, go fetch your homeboy saully and tell him to suit up.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2668
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:30 pm

Good one. Just so befitting my present archival state of mind. Just on our way to right wood, a place we had constantly gone to when my oldest son was just a boy.

The conversation veered from his plan to leave his wife and two kids to the matter of control.

Just off the cuff, and I will rehash the whole forum, is, what manner of device does control have within or without these definitional problems surrounding the will , the appolonian, the opposite, etc.

In other words does the will have some kind of hegemony over an intentional representation ( schopenhauer)by a willful object I e application (intentionality); as a reducible , albeit contentious and contingent possibility?(Heidegger)

I will decode later, as necessity dictates.

The codex describes an overall redu ibiliru from meaning to pre-figured deconstruction of stretched out elements for the purpose of rationalization to account for the missing layers.


Prom: the above is merely another form of representation descriptive of it's accompanying romantic idiom that powers the will.
So an antynom will not serve any purpose, or a collusion as it is described nowadays.

Let's grin and bear each other's description awhile, until meaning can be decoded to an extent that will reify at least to the point of a new take off, as Xunian , I believe said it originally.


I dunno about Jacob, but sully has been gone a very long time, is he still alive?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6224
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Nietzsche, greek tragedy, and master slave morality

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:34 pm

promethean75 wrote:
Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge... The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of "equal" rights... What is bad? But I have said this already: all that is born of weakness, of envy, of revenge.— The anarchist and the Christian have the same origin..."
[Nietzsche, ibid.]


We fixin to get back into this one, ya'll. Lemme take a shower and find me a coffee shop. Jakob, go fetch your homeboy saully and tell him to suit up.

Whats more relevant right now is the "educated masses" Nietzsche speaks of in the will to power, I think, who form the putty for the artist tyrant to shape the future out of.
We see this now in the "woke" movement. I.e. the debt-crippled virtue-signallers, the new under class.

You, Prom, think you're under-class, but you're upper class. You have actual work, namely actual skills for which there is real demand in the physical plane, and no student debts, thus no owners. Most people coming out of college do so with so much debt that they can be 99 percent sure that they'll always remain beholden to the banks, meaning, they are actually property of other humans. At that, the only way they can even get and hold a job that allows them to pay off the interests on their debt, is by virtue signalling, by being politically correct, i.e. by expressing a violent will to destroy American democracy and a hatred of the concepts of biology, and performing other very tiresome activities that serve only the interests of their owners.

When I first read of this in 2002 or so, I had no real picture of what precisely the nature of these educated masses would be. I was still fresh college dropout myself, dropped out of course because I was literally not allowed to express my thoughts, a command structure which was impossible for me to comply with. But, I still had a lot of my intellectual friends then and stuff and just didn't really quite see yet what would become the case - what is the case now. Now that I do see, I see that there don't seem to be a whole lot of solutions other than the one Nietzsche envisioned. And indeed this would amount to an absolute class division, except, not in the Marxist way - marxism merely serves to solidify the slave class qua its being property of the upper classes. Which aren't so much defined by their capital as by their will to play with humanity, with human nature, as one plays with a chemistry set. Different nuances. There isn't gong to be a dialectic, there is just going to be an Egyptian styled hierarchy, of philosopher-lords governing billions of people who have been educated into illiteracy at their own expenses, and thus at the cost of every bit of what could have been their liberty if they had just followed a path like yours and learned a craft.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users