Scan barcode
A review by sbenzell
The Birth of Tragedy: Out of the Spirit of Music by Friedrich Nietzsche
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.