The Invention of Dionysus [Paperback]

James Porter (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0804737002 | ISBN-13: 978-0804737005 | Publication Date: September 1, 2000 | Edition: 1

This book argues that The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche’s first book, does not mark a rupture with his prior philosophical undertakings but is, in fact, continuous with them and with his later writings as well. These continuities are displayed above all in the entanglement of his surface narratives, in the self-consuming artifice of his writing, in the interplay of his voices, posturings, and ironies—in a word, in his staging of meaning rather than in his advocacy of one position or another.

The author shows that many of the substantive elements of The Birth of Tragedy are reminiscent of Nietzsche’s earlier revisions of philology and that they anticipate the later writings: the inversion of the Dionysian and Appollinian domains; the interest in the atomistic challenge to Platonism (one of Nietzsche’s lifelong concerns); and the theory of the all-too-human subject that emerges as a cultural anthropology, a hauntingly present reminder of human pretensions and their limits, which is likewise a thread that runs through the whole of Nietzsche’s oeuvre, critically undoing what his philosophy appears to erect. The author argues that the coherence of Nietzsche’s writings up to and including The Birth of Tragedy is incontestable. It points to a fact that needs to be turned to account in any reading of The Birth of Tragedy, namely that Nietzsche is a most unreliable witness to his own meaning.

The first parts of the study focus on broader issues: the relation of The Birth of Tragedy to the later writings; the problems of what the author calls “the metaphysics of appearances” (as opposed to the identification of the metaphysical as a realm lurking “behind” appearances); and the appearance—the apparition—of metaphysics in both the early and late works. In the latter parts of the study, the focus falls more narrowly on the formal and thematic complications in the narrative of The Birth of Tragedy. This book, the author argues, is a self-standing, complexly organized, and complete piece of imagining that needs to be examined on its own terms. And so while the surrounding philosophical reflections that Nietzsche made prior to and at the time of The Birth of Tragedy are brought in as needed, for instance the notes on Kant, Schopenhauer, and Lange, the primary interest lies in the self-presentation of the work itself.

Editorial Reviews

Review

The Invention of Dionysus breaks new ground in our appreciation of Nietzsche...Porter’s minute and innovative reading...is both challenging and stimuling, requiring us to return to a work too often glossed over.” —Thomas L. Cooksey, Armongstrong Atlantic State University

From the Inside Flap

This book argues that The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche’s first book, does not mark a rupture with his prior philosophical undertakings but is, in fact, continuous with them and with his later writings as well. These continuities are displayed above all in the entanglement of his surface narratives, in the self-consuming artifice of his writing, in the interplay of his voices, posturings, and ironies—in a word, in his staging of meaning rather than in his advocacy of one position or another.
The author shows that many of the substantive elements of The Birth of Tragedy are reminiscent of Nietzsche’s earlier revisions of philology and that they anticipate the later writings: the inversion of the Dionysian and Appollinian domains; the interest in the atomistic challenge to Platonism (one of Nietzsche’s lifelong concerns); and the theory of the all-too-human subject that emerges as a cultural anthropology, a hauntingly present reminder of human pretensions and their limits, which is likewise a thread that runs through the whole of Nietzsche’s oeuvre, critically undoing what his philosophy appears to erect. The author argues that the coherence of Nietzsche’s writings up to and including The Birth of Tragedy is incontestable. It points to a fact that needs to be turned to account in any reading of The Birth of Tragedy, namely that Nietzsche is a most unreliable witness to his own meaning.
The first parts of the study focus on broader issues: the relation of The Birth of Tragedy to the later writings; the problems of what the author calls “the metaphysics of appearances” (as opposed to the identification of the metaphysical as a realm lurking “behind” appearances); and the appearance—the apparition—of metaphysics in both the early and late works. In the latter parts of the study, the focus falls more narrowly on the formal and thematic complications in the narrative of The Birth of Tragedy. This book, the author argues, is a self-standing, complexly organized, and complete piece of imagining that needs to be examined on its own terms. And so while the surrounding philosophical reflections that Nietzsche made prior to and at the time of The Birth of Tragedy are brought in as needed, for instance the notes on Kant, Schopenhauer, and Lange, the primary interest lies in the self-presentation of the work itself.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 240 pages
• Publisher: Stanford University Press; 1 edition (September 1, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0804737002
• ISBN-13: 978-0804737005
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,633,019 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars For Nietzsche, art is nothing less then a "life affirming force", December 29, 2008

By 

Michael A Neulander "Political Philosophy" (VA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Invention of Dionysus (Paperback)

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. James Porter in "The Invention of Dionysius," does an excellent job of elucidating Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" and "On The Genealogy of Morality," which 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... Read more ›