Nietzsche: The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (Paperback)

by Friedrich Nietzsche (Author), Raymond Geuss (Editor), Ronald Speirs (Editor) "Whatever underlies this questionable book, it must be a most stimulating and supremely important question and, furthermore, a profoundly personal one - as is attested..." (more)
Key Phrases: lovely semblance, metaphysical solace, beautiful semblance, New Comedy, Richard Wagner, Diogenes Laertius (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description
The Birth of Tragedy is one of the seminal philosophical works of the modern period. The theories developed in this relatively short text have had a profound influence on the philosophy, literature, music and politics of the twentieth century. This edition presents a new translation by Ronald Speirs and an introduction by Raymond Geuss that sets the work in its historical and philosophical context. The volume also includes two essays on related topics that Nietzsche wrote during the same period.

Language Notes
Text: English (translation)
Original Language: German --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 203 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press (April 28, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521639875
• ISBN-13: 978-0521639873
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #131,217 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #53 in	Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Movements > Existentialism
  #96 in	Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Aesthetics

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Greeks, those who made life seem most seductive... , May 6, 2006

By	S. Lee "Art Not in Heaven" (College Station, TX United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Although I'd spent some time reading Nietzsche somewhat intensively, I'm far from being a "student of Nietzsche," let alone a "Nietzsche scholar." My reading of him was more as a disturbed soul than as a student/scholar, and I didn't get much in the way of philosophical achievement of his. One of my plans for the summer is to read him more carefully and more with an eye to his intellectual development, and I began with The Birth of Tragedy.

So, BT is his first book, published when he was only 27. As he himself famously noted, 14 years after the first publication of BT, it is "a first book in every bad sense of the word." Apart from his own criticism (in "Attempt at a Self-Criticism"), any new reader just entering Nietzsche's corpus and Nietzsche scholorship is bound to hear of critical belittlements toward BT. So we hear that Nietzsche of BT is far from the mature philosopher we admire in Beyond Good and Evil and other later works, that he was under a strong sway of his youthful influences (Wagner, Schopenhauer) and was helplessly romantic. That he was a mere "philologist and cultural critic," whose philosophical maturing is years to come. That, taken with Nietzsche's later intellectual developments in mind, it is a "scandalous" (albeit in a different sense from what his detractors used it on its publication) book. Etc. Etc.

I'm now into Human, All Too Human, and I cannot but think that what Richard Schacht says in "Introduction" as to this another llargely ignored book of Nietzsche's early period equally applies to BT: "Even today, few recognize it as the gold mine it is, not only as an excellent way of becoming acquainted with his thinking, but also for its wealth of ideas worth thinking about." Coarsely put, isn't it often true that the worst work by the greatest mind often is far superior to the best by the mediocre?

My reading of BT this time concludes: his most pressing concern in BT is *not* to pay homage to Wagner or Schopenhauer, rather it is to seek ways to learn from Greeks, for as he notes, "the ability to learn from this people is in itself a matter of lofty fame and distinguishing rarity." By tracing the birth and death of tragedy in ancient Greece, Nietzsche is showing us how a culture could "justify" (affirm and embrace) even the "worst of all worlds," and how it perished. His diagnosis of modern ills toward the end of BT is indeed a goldmine, a wealth of ideas worth exploring, and is so pertinent to our time.

Perhaps Nietzsche's insights and ideas in BT have been fully explored and exhausted, and thus we may benefit more from elsewhere in this regard. Yet, as a beautifully written "youthful" book, belonging to the precious group of books we may call "books for the eternal youth (in us)," it has the power to make our heart beat faster, awakening the spirit in us we thought we have long lost.

3.0 out of 5 stars Competent translation --incompetent editor (1/2), April 4, 2009

By	Alaric - See all my reviews

This volume includes

The Birth of Tragedy
The Dionysian World View
On Truth and Lying in the Supra-Moral Sense

Ronald Speirs' translation is very good and about everything one expects from an institution such as Cambridge. Raymond Geuss' introduction is: unsympathetic, condescending, spurious and trite with biographical snippets excepting. Skip the introduction to this text.

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 (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.