The Birth of Tragedy by Nietzsche - Essay Example

Nietzsche’s Account, in Terms of the Apollonian and Dionysian, of the Nature of Ancient Greek Tragedy Nietzsche in his book The Birth of Tragedy uses principles of the Apollonian and the Dionysian in explaining the nature of Greek culture. The Apollonian is derived from Apollo, who was the Greek god of prophecy, intelligence, healing and plagues. Conversely, Dionysus was the Greek god of agriculture, wine and nature fertility that created an enabling environment to the Greeks. The Dionysian originated from here, as they associated the god with mystery religions precisely practised in Eleusis. The Apollonian corresponds to the Schopenhauer which means the principle of “individualism” where every individual aspect of man falls under the Apollonian. Similarly, the Dionysian corresponds to Schopenhauer which means the principle of “will” that is highly opposed to Apollonian. The Dionysian manifests when man gives up individualism to submerge into the general life led by every member of the Greek society. Nietzsche terms artistic creation as dependent on two opposing forces, which are the Apollonian and the Dionysian, where the Apollonian refers to the life giving force that shapes self-sense and is characterised by measured control and disinterest. According to Nietzsche, the Dionysian refers to a situation where the self gives way for uniting with others and general nature. Interestingly, both are intertwined at some point although they oppose each other diametrically (Nietzsche 1999, p.15). They are equally important in the arts because without the Apollonian, the Dionysian cannot have a good enough form and structure to create an art while without the Dionysian, the Apollonian does not have vitality and passion. The two Greek mythological concepts have been highly relied upon in the artistic domain to bring out interesting creativity that possibly attracts the attention of audiences. Greeks were not sensitive to suffering, thus they were highly vulnerable to influence of challenges they faced in their daily routines. They therefore developed the Apollonian aspect to avoid suffering in their daily activities since the principle developed temporary truth, although the matter in question was not real in order to assume life’s setbacks that come along. Despite the Apollonian shield, the Dionysian brought out the real effect of suffering at the heart in all occupations. The two opposing forces of the Apollonian and the Dionysian provide different categories of art in the Greek culture, but at some point, their relationship tends to face struggles (Allison 2001, p.30). It is for this reason that Greeks used images and dreams to protect themselves from the reality of sufferings thus making the early Greek art dull considering that the Apollonian aspect outweighed the Dionysian aspect a great deal. According to Nietzsche, the greatest human accomplishments are the Greek tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles where they use the Apollonian to tame the Dionysian passion in order to achieve their sublime effect. This meant that, the Apollonian had to be used in order to bring a reasonable meaning in the Dionysian concept and vice versa. Greek tragedy first occurred during a religious function with a chorus of singers and dancers where two or more actors parted to act as actors as this made art colourful and appealing to the audiences. Considering the presence of chorus singers and dancers, the religious rituals became appealing and interesting because choruses were complemented using actors that danced as the songs were on progress. Chorus were used as a representation of the primal unity achieved through the Dionysian although some people believed it acted as an ideal spectator. Notably, the Apollonian concept gives form to the Dionysian aspect in art, where the death of a hero is an affirmation of real life through artistic representation because the death of a hero is viewed as normal life. It was believed that, immediately after a tragic hero died, they were absorbed back by the Dionysian original unity. This clearly showed that demise was not a destructive act, but rather a life series that everyone expected to occur once in a lifetime (Young 1999, p.5). Therefore, the two concepts were used to respond to ordinary and extraordinary issues that Greeks experienced interacting with each other and nature. They were further incorporated in culture to make sure that Greeks faced adverse effects without much ado, for example, to be able to assume death and natural calamities that were far beyond human intervention. However, after some time, Greek tragic era ended in a period barely less than a century after the combined influence of Euripides and Socrates. Euripides destroyed original unity induced by the Dionysian and the temporally truth induced by the Apollonian and replaced Greek culture with a platform of moral and rational practices. Instead of using tragic heroes, Euripides used characters from all aspects of human beings while Socrates insisted justification for every decision arrived at. Nietzsche claimed that wrongdoing is because of lacking knowledge while being instinct is lack of insight thus suggesting the need to justify truth using the scientific worldview. Importantly, Nietzsche raised a critical concern over the concept of “The Birth of Tragedy” on how it contributed towards the world and existence of human being. The era of tragedy was criticized for being rational in assuming that it was the best approach towards existence and the world especially based on knowledge. It was noted that Greek tragedy could not coexist in the Socratic world following differences in principles upheld in both eras. For example, in the Socratic world, man becomes fully human by becoming fully rational while tragedy gains anchorage after exposure to the depths that lie beneath their rational surface. Therefore, Greek tragedy was abandoned after the invention of the Socratic world because it could not be applied in modern life especially after invention of science. In conclusion, the Apollonian and the Dionysian were the key shapers of the Greek culture since they related directly to determine human coexistent. The development of the two principles came because of increased suffering by the Greeks which resulted in their seeking solutions for both ordinary and extraordinary elements that pose challenges to humans. Their greatest achievement was development of the Greek tragedy and the Apollonian and the Dionysian principles that helped achieve the sublime effect in their daily routines. The two principles were dependent on each other, although at some point they tend to differ greatly. Finally, the reign of Greek tragedy ended after the emergence of Euripides and Socrates who brought new forms of reasoning, especially in the field of science. References Allison, D.B., 2001. Reading the new Nietzsche: The birth of tragedy, the Gay Science, Thus spoke Zarathustra, and the Genealogy of morals, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Nietzsche, F., Geuss, R. & Speirs, R., 1999. Nietzsche :The birth of tragedy and other writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Young, J., 1999. Nietzsches philosophy of art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More