Customer Reviews

The Birth of Tragedy & The Genealogy of Morals

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The translator of this volume does not seem to grasp what Nietzsche is trying to do. He omits passages that are important for understanding of the text simply because the importance of them is not always clear at first. He also omits the references that Nietzsche makes to his own earlier works. This makes the text flow more smoothly, but doesn't allow the reader the opportunity get a handle on what Nietzsche is up to, and doesn't give the reader a sense of what other works by this author might be of interest. Again, this is a good work, but there are better translations available!

I have to be the sensible voice of dissent on this one: having read the Hollingdale and Kaufmann translations of these books, and although Golffing was no authority par excellance on Nietzsche (but rather a poet--not utterly devoid of perspective), I think this particular pair of translated works has its necessary place among the more respected editions. Yes, it does lack the trademark styles and general passion characteristic of Nietzsche's writings--but only for the initiated reader; this is actually a perfect edition for the rookie, the newbie: it takes the overwhelming aspect away, it eases the fresh reader into the shock and rapidity of the stream of thought, it presents the subject matter in a way that would garner an undergrad or graduate student "props" as a brilliant writer with a universal style. Obviously, as one becomes more attuned to these vibes, they will want to reach for the more difficult readings--not merely to test their comprehension skills, but for personal aesthetics as well, like the feeling of accomplishment. The more seasoned reader knows that Nietzsche is all about personality (he is literary-style, personified) and passion, but they should as well note that our author here is not accessible to everyone the same way (let alone with ease, if at all). I still found substance here, I found a less colorful rendition of thematic scope, I found a "Nietzsche for Beginners"--but why hate on Golffing as a result?; and considering the growing popularity of the author, the latecomers will all have to step through that door in some fashion, and this book does a better than average job of allowing just that.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" and "On The Genealogy of Morality" begin to shape or force the latter character of his thought, which is an affirmation of life. An affirmation of life, even with its tragic character rather than an affirmation of life without tragedy. Nietzsche agrees with Schopenhauer about the nature of reality being dark. He accepts Plato's characterization about tragedy, but affirms tragedy instead of wanting to ban it like Plato argued for in his "Republic." He rejects Aristotle' formalism, Nietzsche rejects Kant's notion of disinterest, and its life denying implications, the whole idea that you have to be disinterested in art is a complete contradiction of the vitality of art. It betrays a kind of life denying implication, if the point of art is to find a zone to turn off ones interests, then why would you think that, that is valuable. Why would someone think that that is a good thing? Nietzsche accepts the idea of genius and like Hegel, although not in the same way as Hegel, Nietzsche elevates art to a high level, by saying that art and reality mirror each other, in that art is a kind of forming formlessness and that is the way reality is. Nietzsche had a big influence on 20th century art.

Nietzsche unlike Aristotle insists on a religious component in tragedy, the two main Greek myth currents is Apollo and Dionysus. By associating these two religious sects with tragedy, it is more historically true for Nietzsche. He observes Greek tragedy and Dionysian religion and its character. The image of Greek culture was one of being measured and civilized, however Nietzsche sees the Dionysian religion was dark and violent and irrational as well. Tragedies were performed at Dionysian festivals it is a "nature" based religion, celebrating the cycle of life, both birth and death. The world is like a restaurant, all living things live off other living things. Dionysian rites probably included animal sacrifices, maybe human as well. Dionysus was an unusual deity in Greece; he was the only one to suffer death and to be brought back to life, unlike other Olympian deities. Dionysian religion was very popular in Greece; Apollonian religion was very popular as well. Nietzsche says tragedy has something to do with Dionysius religions dark side.

One of the best sources of the Dionysian religion is Euripides in the "Bacchae." There is some question about his intent in writing the "Bacchae." Euripides turns against his Greek tragic tradition by showing the Greeks the absurdities and ironies in their tragic tradition with his plays, which also essentially recommend that Greeks turn away from their form of tragedy. Euripidean heroes are usually rebelling against the state rather than accommodating it. However, the "Bacchae" is an unusual play because it seems to be just the kind of portrayal of the Dionysian religion. It is a tragic satire of Dionysian religion by presenting its absurdities.

Nietzsche's point is that there is something very different about tragedies, they have measured constructions of beauty and form, and Aristotle is very good at pointing that out. Greek tragedys are not chaotic not just wild abandonment, they are beautifully constructed artistic works with plots and characters and story lines. This is often misunderstood, for Nietzsche Greek tragedy is not a purely Dionysian phenomenon. Apollo, the Apollonian religion is equally important to understand tragedy, and in fact, it is the Apollonian part that makes tragedy for Nietzsche not a life of pessimism art form. You could say the Dionysian and Apollonian religions were two powerful forces that are very different from each other. Nietzsche said they had different manifestations and often looked on each other with antagonism. Dionysian religion and Christianity has similarities, the dying God, sacrament of eating and drinking of the body. Nietzsche's tragic hero is done in by faith, for both. Big difference for Christianity is the resurrection. Nietzsche believes that what makes Greek tragedy special is that it is a joining of these two forces, the Apollonian form in representing measured power and the darker undoing power of the Dionysian religion.

Apollo represents form and Dionysus formlessness. Apollonian form is an artistic phenomenon it is not a rational form. Sometimes people read the Apollonian as a rational principle, but they do this because Socrates comes on the scene who represents what Plato wanted. The overcoming of the tragic by way of the conscious reflection and rational principles and so on. The Apollonian is always an artistic sensuous produced form. The Dionysian is the impulse to self-transcendence and by self-transcendence Nietzsche means the Greek word ecstasy, which literally means to stand outside oneself. It would be proper therefore to say that the Dionysian experiences were ecstatic in the literal sense because there was a loss of individualization a loss of self-consciousness and an emersion in these powerful natural forces. Therefore, the whole point of the Dionysian religion was to overcome the self. You can see that eroticism and killing are two forms of dismemberment. Killing is obviously the termination of life, but as every human cultural knows, the power of the erotic has its own kind of dismembering force in that it is a natural force that can easily undue the culture. Sex is always an enemy in some respects, and yet, no sex, no culture. The erotic is a natural force and all cultures have recognized the power of the erotic as a powerfully disintegrating force. It can lead people to abandon all decorum and measure and responsibility. Therefore, sex, birth, and death are the Dionysian religion in a nutshell. Dionysian's would argue no sex no culture, so why not give cultural expression to power of sex. This releases pent up depression. Nietzsche wants to understand tragedy as interdependent, yet the form of the one religion is dependent of the other religion. Dionysian part and Apollonian part are together in tragedy, but with dark theme but no wholly chaotic art form. Tragedy represents reconciling of the two religions. Nietzsche's point is we truly don't understand what tragedy meant to the Greeks. It wasn't simply a dark story of destruction. It had religious connotations.

From this religious cultural analysis, Nietzsche wants to form an art theory. In Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" he sees things in the Greek world having a stimulus of thought starting philosophy. Regeneration of art world, was he thought, found in Richard Wagner's music. Nietzsche is a life philosopher. Nietzsche believes there is some life force tapped into by the creative person. Artists are "touched" by a force. Dionysian religion is a bit of this you lose yourself and are given over to something more powerful like Nietzsche's life force. Creativity has to be a little abnormal or as Nietzsche says dissatisfaction with the normal. Nietzsche argued that philosophy should contain artistic elements. One of the messages of Nietzsche's philosophy is that the problem arose when philosophy came on the scene and tried to organize and govern everything by rational concepts and methods and reflection and categorization and demonstration and logical arguments. That is the reason why Socrates and Plato found tragedy so offensive, so unwieldy and such a stimulation. But then again Nietzsche asks the question, before I get on board with this plan to overcome these terrible forces, I want to know why its so terrible, this is his constant method, which is to ask, prove to me why tragedy has to give way to philosophy. Part of Nietzsche's approach to philosophy itself is that philosophy should contain artistic elements. This is the reason for his writing style, which are elusive and not straightforward argumentations.

Remember, Schopenhauer who influenced Nietzsche's thinking said the ultimate nature of will is this formless chaotic energy, that we strive for meaning that we have here and there but in the end it is all taken away from us and that is the end of it and that is why life is meaningless. However, Nietzsche says the fact that the Greeks had this very same insight but did not turn away from life should not have been a puzzle to Schopenhauer it should have made Schopenhauer question his own argument. Instead, Schopenhauer argued that the Greeks didn't realize the full impact of tragic insight, they were naive. Nietzsche thought Schopenhauer was wrong about tragedy. Schopenhauer thought tragedy was a necessary insight into meaninglessness, which would lead to resignation. That is why the Apollonian is so important for Nietzsche; the Apollonian is what saves the human spirit from disintegration. Therefore, art has this saving power. However, the fact that the Greeks had in one form in tragedy, the two forces of Apollo and Dionysus interests Nietzsche. On the one hand, they recognize the limits of things, in the other hand they delighted in the artistic orientation of this dark story. How can there be pleasure from dark themes in art, in a way Nietzsche is giving his own version of it, for him it is inherently life affirming to actually render the dark in artistic form. There is a difference between coming to the insight that life is meaningless, and then saying that now guides all my thinking and all my dispositions. The very fact of tragedy as an artistic form is life saving element for the Greeks. The curious thing is that the Greeks could enjoy these tragic performances and yet the message was dark.

Therefore, it is important to note that Nietzsche insists that the Apollonian and Dionysian dyad are a characteristic of reality. One by themselves is not real. Form is by itself just an allusion of formal structure; an allusion of formal structure is what so many philosophers wanted, eternal being eternal structures, timeless truths that would be form. Formlessness by itself is too chaotic, no culture, no art, no creativity. Nietzsche was always a philosopher of culture, always pointing to his German culture that he thought needed to be renewed and revived. Nietzsche recognizes the force and reality of wildness, but it is the two together that make human life, the wild, and the cultured, both are unavoidable dualities the Apollonian and Dionysian. Greek tragedy brought them into focus; his philosophy tries to work from that and he says, yes that is how we should see existence.

So poetry and tragedy are both pre-conceptual artforms that start culture, no culture starts with philosophy, conceptual formations and definitions and axioms and truths. Culture begin with religion and art forms and habit and things that are not clarifying with conceptual structure. They have life to them and a culture lives them out. Although he values philosophy as higher form of thinking, he always insists that philosophy can't alienate itself from pre-conceptual world of art, (poetry), which he certainly thought Plato was saying when he wanted to ban poetry. Nietzsche would say there is an infinite relationship between poetry and philosophy and that means that those who might want to distinguish philosophy with having a higher value than just poetry are wrong. He thinks it is wrong that you can have a pure conceptual procedure on the one hand and have anything of deep value or that you can simply have a poetic genre on one hand all by itself. Thinking is important, not just poeticizing. However, Nietzsche argues we must have thinking with poeticizing.

I recommend this work for anyone interested in Nietzschean philosophy, philosophy of art, Greek tragedy, culture, and history.

This was required reading for one of political science classes. Great book! Just keep in mind you need to expect a book on the theory of politics to have some controversial ideas.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" and "On The Genealogy of Morality" begin to shape or force the latter character of his thought, which is an affirmation of life. An affirmation of life, even with its tragic character rather than an affirmation of life without tragedy. Nietzsche agrees with Schopenhauer about the nature of reality being dark. He accepts Plato's characterization about tragedy, but affirms tragedy instead of wanting to ban it like Plato argued for in his "Republic." He rejects Aristotle' formalism, Nietzsche rejects Kant's notion of disinterest, and its life denying implications, the whole idea that you have to be disinterested in art is a complete contradiction of the vitality of art. It betrays a kind of life denying implication, if the point of art is to find a zone to turn off ones interests, then why would you think that, that is valuable. Why would someone think that that is a good thing? Nietzsche accepts the idea of genius and like Hegel, although not in the same way as Hegel, Nietzsche elevates art to a high level, by saying that art and reality mirror each other, in that art is a kind of forming formlessness and that is the way reality is. Nietzsche had a big influence on 20th century art.

Nietzsche unlike Aristotle insists on a religious component in tragedy, the two main Greek myth currents is Apollo and Dionysus. By associating these two religious sects with tragedy, it is more historically true for Nietzsche. He observes Greek tragedy and Dionysian religion and its character. The image of Greek culture was one of being measured and civilized, however Nietzsche sees the Dionysian religion was dark and violent and irrational as well. Tragedies were performed at Dionysian festivals it is a "nature" based religion, celebrating the cycle of life, both birth and death. The world is like a restaurant, all living things live off other living things. Dionysian rites probably included animal sacrifices, maybe human as well. Dionysus was an unusual deity in Greece; he was the only one to suffer death and to be brought back to life, unlike other Olympian deities. Dionysian religion was very popular in Greece; Apollonian religion was very popular as well. Nietzsche says tragedy has something to do with Dionysius religions dark side.

One of the best sources of the Dionysian religion is Euripides in the "Bacchae." There is some question about his intent in writing the "Bacchae." Euripides turns against his Greek tragic tradition by showing the Greeks the absurdities and ironies in their tragic tradition with his plays, which also essentially recommend that Greeks turn away from their form of tragedy. Euripidean heroes are usually rebelling against the state rather than accommodating it. However, the "Bacchae" is an unusual play because it seems to be just the kind of portrayal of the Dionysian religion. It is a tragic satire of Dionysian religion by presenting its absurdities.

Nietzsche's point is that there is something very different about tragedies, they have measured constructions of beauty and form, and Aristotle is very good at pointing that out. Greek tragedys are not chaotic not just wild abandonment, they are beautifully constructed artistic works with plots and characters and story lines. This is often misunderstood, for Nietzsche Greek tragedy is not a purely Dionysian phenomenon. Apollo, the Apollonian religion is equally important to understand tragedy, and in fact, it is the Apollonian part that makes tragedy for Nietzsche not a life of pessimism art form. You could say the Dionysian and Apollonian religions were two powerful forces that are very different from each other. Nietzsche said they had different manifestations and often looked on each other with antagonism. Dionysian religion and Christianity has similarities, the dying God, sacrament of eating and drinking of the body. Nietzsche's tragic hero is done in by faith, for both. Big difference for Christianity is the resurrection. Nietzsche believes that what makes Greek tragedy special is that it is a joining of these two forces, the Apollonian form in representing measured power and the darker undoing power of the Dionysian religion.

Apollo represents form and Dionysus formlessness. Apollonian form is an artistic phenomenon it is not a rational form. Sometimes people read the Apollonian as a rational principle, but they do this because Socrates comes on the scene who represents what Plato wanted. The overcoming of the tragic by way of the conscious reflection and rational principles and so on. The Apollonian is always an artistic sensuous produced form. The Dionysian is the impulse to self-transcendence and by self-transcendence Nietzsche means the Greek word ecstasy, which literally means to stand outside oneself. It would be proper therefore to say that the Dionysian experiences were ecstatic in the literal sense because there was a loss of individualization a loss of self-consciousness and an emersion in these powerful natural forces. Therefore, the whole point of the Dionysian religion was to overcome the self. You can see that eroticism and killing are two forms of dismemberment. Killing is obviously the termination of life, but as every human cultural knows, the power of the erotic has its own kind of dismembering force in that it is a natural force that can easily undue the culture. Sex is always an enemy in some respects, and yet, no sex, no culture. The erotic is a natural force and all cultures have recognized the power of the erotic as a powerfully disintegrating force. It can lead people to abandon all decorum and measure and responsibility. Therefore, sex, birth, and death are the Dionysian religion in a nutshell. Dionysian's would argue no sex no culture, so why not give cultural expression to power of sex. This releases pent up depression. Nietzsche wants to understand tragedy as interdependent, yet the form of the one religion is dependent of the other religion. Dionysian part and Apollonian part are together in tragedy, but with dark theme but no wholly chaotic art form. Tragedy represents reconciling of the two religions. Nietzsche's point is we truly don't understand what tragedy meant to the Greeks. It wasn't simply a dark story of destruction. It had religious connotations.

From this religious cultural analysis, Nietzsche wants to form an art theory. In Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" he sees things in the Greek world having a stimulus of thought starting philosophy. Regeneration of art world, was he thought, found in Richard Wagner's music. Nietzsche is a life philosopher. Nietzsche believes there is some life force tapped into by the creative person. Artists are "touched" by a force. Dionysian religion is a bit of this you lose yourself and are given over to something more powerful like Nietzsche's life force. Creativity has to be a little abnormal or as Nietzsche says dissatisfaction with the normal. Nietzsche argued that philosophy should contain artistic elements. One of the messages of Nietzsche's philosophy is that the problem arose when philosophy came on the scene and tried to organize and govern everything by rational concepts and methods and reflection and categorization and demonstration and logical arguments. That is the reason why Socrates and Plato found tragedy so offensive, so unwieldy and such a stimulation. But then again Nietzsche asks the question, before I get on board with this plan to overcome these terrible forces, I want to know why its so terrible, this is his constant method, which is to ask, prove to me why tragedy has to give way to philosophy. Part of Nietzsche's approach to philosophy itself is that philosophy should contain artistic elements. This is the reason for his writing style, which are elusive and not straightforward argumentations.

Remember, Schopenhauer who influenced Nietzsche's thinking said the ultimate nature of will is this formless chaotic energy, that we strive for meaning that we have here and there but in the end it is all taken away from us and that is the end of it and that is why life is meaningless. However, Nietzsche says the fact that the Greeks had this very same insight but did not turn away from life should not have been a puzzle to Schopenhauer it should have made Schopenhauer question his own argument. Instead, Schopenhauer argued that the Greeks didn't realize the full impact of tragic insight, they were naive. Nietzsche thought Schopenhauer was wrong about tragedy. Schopenhauer thought tragedy was a necessary insight into meaninglessness, which would lead to resignation. That is why the Apollonian is so important for Nietzsche; the Apollonian is what saves the human spirit from disintegration. Therefore, art has this saving power. However, the fact that the Greeks had in one form in tragedy, the two forces of Apollo and Dionysus interests Nietzsche. On the one hand, they recognize the limits of things, in the other hand they delighted in the artistic orientation of this dark story. How can there be pleasure from dark themes in art, in a way Nietzsche is giving his own version of it, for him it is inherently life affirming to actually render the dark in artistic form. There is a difference between coming to the insight that life is meaningless, and then saying that now guides all my thinking and all my dispositions. The very fact of tragedy as an artistic form is life saving element for the Greeks. The curious thing is that the Greeks could enjoy these tragic performances and yet the message was dark.

Therefore, it is important to note that Nietzsche insists that the Apollonian and Dionysian dyad are a characteristic of reality. One by themselves is not real. Form is by itself just an allusion of formal structure; an allusion of formal structure is what so many philosophers wanted, eternal being eternal structures, timeless truths that would be form. Formlessness by itself is too chaotic, no culture, no art, no creativity. Nietzsche was always a philosopher of culture, always pointing to his German culture that he thought needed to be renewed and revived. Nietzsche recognizes the force and reality of wildness, but it is the two together that make human life, the wild, and the cultured, both are unavoidable dualities the Apollonian and Dionysian. Greek tragedy brought them into focus; his philosophy tries to work from that and he says, yes that is how we should see existence.

So poetry and tragedy are both pre-conceptual artforms that start culture, no culture starts with philosophy, conceptual formations and definitions and axioms and truths. Culture begin with religion and art forms and habit and things that are not clarifying with conceptual structure. They have life to them and a culture lives them out. Although he values philosophy as higher form of thinking, he always insists that philosophy can't alienate itself from pre-conceptual world of art, (poetry), which he certainly thought Plato was saying when he wanted to ban poetry. Nietzsche would say there is an infinite relationship between poetry and philosophy and that means that those who might want to distinguish philosophy with having a higher value than just poetry are wrong. He thinks it is wrong that you can have a pure conceptual procedure on the one hand and have anything of deep value or that you can simply have a poetic genre on one hand all by itself. Thinking is important, not just poeticizing. However, Nietzsche argues we must have thinking with poeticizing.

I recommend this work for anyone interested in Nietzschean philosophy, philosophy of art, Greek tragedy, culture, and history.

Ill give it 2 stars instead of 1. because it is not nietzsche i have the prolem with.

I knew i was taking a chance by buying this, I like Hollingdale, and like kaufman, but this translater, takes the fun out of freddie. It hardly even sounds like nietzsche speaking. For one example a famous line is "we all speak vaugly about poerty because we are all bad poets.".. When i read that line i barely realized i read it as he write "we all speak abrtractly about our poetry because we tend to be indifferent poets." The whole book reads like that. Nietzsche Bold statements! poetic prose are replaced with boring textbook like translation. I realized we might have a problem when i read the "ABOUT THE AUTHOR" in the book and he had traslated the title of "THE GAY SCIENCE" to "THE JOYFUL KNOWING" uhm.... I'm re-buying the book today the kaufman version. dont buy this.

"Die, Jew!" These words and other anti-Semitist phrases echo through the reader's mind as he studies this piece. Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals is the powerful piece of literature with more than controversial ideals. Upon reading it, one gets the sense that this work is the product of a demented, enraged mind. In the course of this reading, Nietzsche shows his ability to captivate a reader with his reason, no matter how twisted his reason is. After reading this selection I came to the assumption that Nietzsche used his brilliant mind to make broad, generalized attacks against those whom he claims are responsible for the problems in the world.
Nietzsche sees a problem with the way morals and values are carried out in our society. The strong are seen as forbidding and the weak are viewed as righteous. He believes that this is an inversion of morals which originates from the hatred of Jews transferred through the Gospel of Christianity. He assumes that any belief in God or values based on kindness is based on personal weakness and is the fruit of the true evil in the world. Morals and values which place a restriction on the strong and favor the weak are the cause for the unjust society. Nietzsche also has a modal for the great controversy these past two thousand years. He uses the titles the dispute "Rome vs. Israel, Israel vs. Rome." Rome he sees as the epitome of strength and the ideal he holds to be noble, Israel as the system which created the weak values system. He is angry because this weak system was able to topple mighty Rome.
I had to read Nietzsche in short sections at a time because it overwhelmed me. It was hard for me to see how someone can be so enraged by the system of values to write a book such as this. As a Christian, I cherish the values of the Bible and hold to a belief in a better life beyond this world. I appreciate Christianity for giving hope to hopeless world. However, Nietzsche sees Christianity as the ultimate form of slavery and the belief in a loving God as an infection upon the human mind. It is impossible for these two ideals to see eye to eye without one side trying to strangle the other. I also see Nietzsche's vendetta against the Jews, his love for strength, and his justification of the strong preying upon the weak as the cornerstone principles needed in for the creation and development of Nazi Germany.
However, I am looking back on his writing from perspective which has seen what he ideals carried out have produced. I doubt that Nietzsche intended to create monsters like Hitler and the terrible power of Nazi Germany. It seems to me that Nietzsche is merely looking at his world from a rational, atheistic viewpoint and is not happy with how things are going. Therefore, he does what all humans do when they have a problem he complains about and uses his writing as a venue to channel out his aggression. I wonder what Nietzsche would say if he knew the consequences of his tantrums and ranting.
Though I do not agree with Nietzsche's offhand remarks against God and believers in God, I did find humor in his dialogue with Mr. Foolhardy into the shop where ideals are contrived. He uses this little anecdote to target mainstream Christian beliefs in a satirical sort of way. He even mentions the unpleasant smell of this shop in a humorous offhand way. I enjoyed that excerpt, though I did not agree with it at all.
Overall Nietzsche's writing is a revolt against the Christian dogma which has captivated the world for so long. He views the system as a manufacturer of weakness and itself a type of parasite to attach to any unwary victim. In this sense I cannot help but understand where Nietzsche is coming from. His perspective of Christianity is the result of centuries of political strife caused by unconverted Christians making hypocritical and atrocious statements in the name of Christ. This has not given the church a good reputation in the eyes of many and may be the single greatest caused for atheism. It is not rational for people to be humble and to learn to love your enemy. Human nature tells us to seek revenge and retaliation but Christ tells us to forgive. This does not make sense to someone who does not have a relationship with God and is extremely preposterous to a person looking at it from outside the Christian circle. Nietzsche is a prime example of the results of the affects of "manufacturing" morals without winning people over. Christians can avoid creating enemies such as Nietzsche if we stop trying to ram our values down other peoples' throats, take away the political influence of the church, and let Christianity be its own witness.