Nietzsche, Schöpenhauer

[Stríbog]

I wondered what your opinions on these philosophers were. I think Nietzsche has some excellent ideas but also some bizarre ones. I love the view of man not as an end unto himself, but as a bridge to the future. Schöpenhauer I am not that familiar with, but I am preparing to read Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. I know both of them were quite misogynistic, that is one aspect of their work that I strongly dislike. As far as the Will to Power dynamic, I apply it to races and to a lesser extent societies, but not to individuals within a society. Also, what do people think about the Apollonian-Dionysian dialectic? I'd like to hear other WN perspectives.


Friedrich Nietzsche


Arthur Schopenhauer

[Rahul]

I have NOT been able to get a good title or any work or commentary on Schopenhauer.

There is a lot which one can find on the Internet, but then, that is available in fragments and fragments, much of that doesn't make much sense at all.

I must speak the basic truth however, which I know. I am not philosophically settled. And this one statement has many ideas and reasons.

[Ederico]

Perhaps first we should identify the main thoughts of these two Philosophers, so anyone with any knowledge should share it with us so that we might start a good discussion on the values of these two Philosophers. Personally I have only read a few pages on Nietzsche in a book by Will Durant called the Story of Philosophy, and I find his views interesting, especially the Overman and his views about Morality being restrictive to the Strong (even though I think I do not really agree to that).

Share any knowledge you have, this is quite interesting.

Misogyny is the hatred of women, and I do not understand why you describe (and I think you are probably right) these two Philosophers as Misogynistic.

What is the Apollonian-Dionysian dialectic? Can someone describe its characteristic?

[OnionPeeler]

A/D form a dualism which is convenient for classifying any number of things in human experience. Nietzsche, who liked dualisms, devoted no little thought to the matter vis-a-vis his superman and static, rule dominated systems. Here is Denis Garrison's definition.

"""

It is Nietzche's proposition that there are, in the sphere of human experience, two opposing forces. The one which he calls the Apollonian represents the forces of balance and rationality. The other force, the Dionysian, represents unchecked, ecstatic and creative power. In the Socratic system, the Apollonian is the embodiment of good since he equates rationality and knowledge with virtue. Nietzche sees the Dionysian in the same role because of his free and sensuous enjoyment of life. The tension between the two extremes constitutes the paradoxical duality which so many seek to resolve.

The Apollonian character, for the purposes of this study, corresponds to Nietzche's model. His motivating drive is the need for rational order. His desires are aimed at consistency with that order. His intentions are directed at bringing either himself or all men into obedience to order. The Apollonian is a realist and his only passion can be for his vision of a systematized reality. There can be for him no dedication to emotional and sensual gratification. The ascetic ideal is attained by the pure Apollonian.

Dionysius is another name for the Greek god, Bacchus, the god of wine and revelry. The use of his name to characterize the opposing ideal to Apollonian rationality is appropriate. The Dionysian character is the sensualist and emotionalist. His motivating drive is pleasure whether it derives from his sensory perceptions or his intellectual faculties. All of his desires are for pleasurable experience. It is, of course, possible that a Dionysian, in his perversity, may derive pleasure for himself from painful or other seemingly negative experiences. His actions are directed by an intent to supply himself with pleasure. He is opposed to the supremacy of reason because of its inherent restrictions upon his pleasure-seeking. Instead he prefers self-indulgence and the satisfaction of his whims. One variety of pleasure for the Dionysian is his submission to emotion, to passion, to love and hate and exult without reason. This ecstatic facet of the Dionysian character is his positive balance for his self-indulgence in animal sensuality. The bawdy rogue with a lust for life epitomizes the Dionysian ideal.

"""

Back later with more.

[Ederico]

Thanks for the feedback OnionPeeler (strange name) I know understood what is the Apollonian/Dionyssian Dualism. I think of myself as closer to the Apollonian Ideal since I put much emphasis on Rationality and Order.

Basically Nietsche favoured the Dionyssian Ideal for his Overman? How can an Overman be Superior if he puts Personal Pleasure before Rationality and Order, and how can a Society be considered Civlised if it follows the Dionyssian Ideal?

A Society based on Knowledge, Rationality, Order, and Discipline is a Society that has the requirements to advance to become the Superior Civilisation as a Society without these values cannot lay claim to Civilisation if it follows the Dionyssian Ideal and thus the Lust for Personal Pleasure associated with this Ideal.

I think the Dionyssian Ideal is much more Individualistic, Superficial, and Materialistic, than the Apollonian Ideal with its emphasis on Rationality, Knowledge, Order, and Discipline.

What are your views?

[OnionPeeler]

One of the things that dogs philosophy often is the tendency to see certain dualisms in the radical wing.

Dualisms come in a couple of forms. The strict binary dualism allows for only two conclusions. One is either alive or dead - there's not much room for in-betweens. Unfortunately, argument often takes the other dualism (that of gradients) and turns them radically binary:

there is knowledge - there is no knowledge, for example.

A variant of the gradient occurs when two opposing notions, initially binary, find an answer in between - the Greek thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. Three points on a gradient.

A/D is a set of not easily defined, and complex, human characteristics. So it's not just a gradient, but a set of gradients:

reasoned - emotional
rationalism - romanticism
deliberate - impetuous
etc...

Nietzsche, like anyone, was a mix of these. Certainly, he viewed much of creativity to be the work of Dionysius --- but, then, he uses Apollonian modes to arrive at the conclusion.

[Ederico]

Wasn't what you mention as the Greek Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis, Hegel's Dialectic? What did Hegel do for this theory?

[cosmocreator]

I've read a few of Nietzsche's books and one of Schöpenhauer. I like Schöpenhauer better. It's been too long since I read them to do a critique on them though.

[Moody]

1) General Philosophical Context:

Modern philosophy begins with Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'.
This means that 'I' can be sure of my Self, as subject, but I cannot be sure of the existence of the objective world.

From this position is derived Absolute Idealism, which holds that the world itself is a product of my Self - therefore there is no objective world.

This philosophy is very influential on German Romanticism.

Kant seeks to overcome this solipsistic idealism by trying to prove the existence of an objective world, or 'thing in itself'.

2) Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer's reading of Kant makes the 'Will to life' that 'thing in itself'. To Schopenhauer, 'The World' is both 'Will' to life, and my 'Idea'.
This Will is the source of all suffering, however; and here Schopenhauer takes a Buddhistic turn and claims that only by renouncing that Will can man achieve happiness.

Schopenhauer also thought that the clearest impression that man can have of this Will is in music; on this basis he developed an aesthetics which was very influential on Wagner.

It was a mutual interest in Schopenhauer's philosophy that brought a young Nietzsche and an ageing Wagner together.

3) Nietzsche

In his first books [most notably 'The Birth of Tragedy'] Nietzsche was very much a Wagnerian/Schopenhauerian. However, with his 'Human All Too Human', Nietzsche broke with both men.

4) Nietzsche's modification of Schopenhauer.

To Nietzsche, the Will was 'The Will to Power'; whereas Schopenhauer taught renunciation, Nietzsche extolled the opposite: i.e., affirmation.
To Nietzsche the higher man, the Superhuman, must embrace life in its totality and affirm it, even in destruction.
Even as the Will to Power churns on endlessy in flux, the Strong Man must impose the Hammer of Being on all this Becoming.
That is heroism.

5) Dionysian

That latter quality is Nietzsche's mature Dionysianism.
It must be noted that the Apollonian/Dionysian dualism was a feature of his early period [e.g., 'The Birth of Tragedy'].
By his magnum opus 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' he had subsumed Apollo in Dionysos, and only now talks of Dionysos which is a synthesis of the two.
He saw that all dualities were rather different poles of the same thing [see 'Beyond Good and Evil', first chapter].

[Ederico]

Perhaps we should expand further on Schoepenhauer, hehe, because I don't know anything about him, excuse my ignorance.