alaan's review against another edition
4.0
Really liked this insight on greek tragedy (have to admit there are many parts i didn't get) even though i love Socrates it's nice to see someone talking shit about him, Nietzsche way of writing made this flow amazingly.
bibliotechamtobias's review against another edition
2.5
can i really say i read this book? idk! i certainly tried. it was beautiful at times but mostly insufferable. sorry nietzche.
muonneutrino_'s review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
mia_a's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.0
Barely... it was almost a DNF. Even though concepts of Dionysusian and Apollonian cultures are very interesting, and a lot can be said about it, I needed a break after almost every chapter. Just not for me. Also, don't approach it without knowledge of Greek tragedies.
josephnell's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
methylblue's review against another edition
3.0
I have no idea what to think of this work. Im pretty sure the author wasn't settled into his ideas either. Still, this book puts things into perspective when compared to his later works.
sbenzell's review against another edition
4.0
Two connections, and a lesson:
The first time I had run into the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction is in the non-fiction book "The Botany Of Desire" which uses the distinction to explore man's relationship to plants with mixed success.
I think this distinction and other related , because it allows us to speak of ideological conflicts without
A second connection is through perhaps the greatest American essay, "Experience" by Ralph Waldo Emerson. We know that Nietzsche read Emerson closely: "We live amid surfaces, and the true art of life is to skate well on them."
Nietzsche in this work is perplexing as ever of course; it is very easy to say what he is against, much harder to say what he is for. But, I think you can pull out one pearl: What is the point of thinking thoughts that make you miserable and nihilistic? Or, in other words, you can't think your way out of a thinking problem.
Let me immediately subvert that point though. One movie I recently enjoyed, and highly recommend is "The Unknown Known" a conversation with Donald Rumsfeld. What is fascinating about the man, is that you quickly realize that he is not, in fact, a neo-con! He has certainly said neo-con-ish things, but the film contrasts these statements with the super realist things he said while working in the Ford administration! In fact, Rumsfeld doesn't seem to really believe in anything, and that is what allowed him to so easily change his ideological clothing when necessary to move up the bureaucratic ranks. His famous quote about 'unknown unknowns' serves to highlight his inherent epistemological pessimism.
I guess my point here is that overthinking things, and thereby making yourself miserable may be bad, but this shouldn't be replaced by the opposite nihilism of thinking that all perspectives are equally valid. Otherwise you'll have no moral backbone when you are actually entrusted with important decisions.
The first time I had run into the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction is in the non-fiction book "The Botany Of Desire" which uses the distinction to explore man's relationship to plants with mixed success.
I think this distinction and other related , because it allows us to speak of ideological conflicts without
A second connection is through perhaps the greatest American essay, "Experience" by Ralph Waldo Emerson. We know that Nietzsche read Emerson closely: "We live amid surfaces, and the true art of life is to skate well on them."
Nietzsche in this work is perplexing as ever of course; it is very easy to say what he is against, much harder to say what he is for. But, I think you can pull out one pearl: What is the point of thinking thoughts that make you miserable and nihilistic? Or, in other words, you can't think your way out of a thinking problem.
Let me immediately subvert that point though. One movie I recently enjoyed, and highly recommend is "The Unknown Known" a conversation with Donald Rumsfeld. What is fascinating about the man, is that you quickly realize that he is not, in fact, a neo-con! He has certainly said neo-con-ish things, but the film contrasts these statements with the super realist things he said while working in the Ford administration! In fact, Rumsfeld doesn't seem to really believe in anything, and that is what allowed him to so easily change his ideological clothing when necessary to move up the bureaucratic ranks. His famous quote about 'unknown unknowns' serves to highlight his inherent epistemological pessimism.
I guess my point here is that overthinking things, and thereby making yourself miserable may be bad, but this shouldn't be replaced by the opposite nihilism of thinking that all perspectives are equally valid. Otherwise you'll have no moral backbone when you are actually entrusted with important decisions.
itisquiet2's review against another edition
4.0
Tbh the only reason I understood any of this is because I was a pretty jackson kid (i also take classics)