A) When did Nierzsche give any indication he renounced his elitism? B) If you insist on applying the Apollonian/Dionysian contrast to politics, what do you mean un-evolved Apollonian ideals exactly?
I think there should be a new rule in the debate forum forbidding the use of quantum mechanics for arguments ...
I'd say probably around the time he was calling on Europe to attack Germany. But honestly I went back and re-checked, and I was incorrect He never gave any clear indication that that he officially renounced Elitism. I still like to think so though. He empathized with a horse so deeply he never recovered. Or so it goes, but what really happened? That sounds like a pretty good piece of fiction actually. The greatest fault of man is in believing we have truth. That ‘what we believe’ is the truth and the best because it is truth. This makes these values stale/rigid because they have resigned the fight against the Dionysian and thus can no longer evolve. Evolution brings the individual out by creating the new. If this isn't happening then it's merely a copy. A regurgitation of un-contemplated idea. If as a group, we regurgitate the original idea enough it is lessened from the original, like an echo loses strength with every bounce. This is decadence born from the un-evolved Apollonian. Let me give you the perfect example that everyone on these forums can relate to. Love. From ancient times we knew this was a symbiotic relationship. We thought about what type of person would fit our needs. Everyone had different ideas about this, like Aristotle for example. He said that they should be someone you can admire; someone who reflects their strength through your weakness. A partnership where both are continually growing through each other. But as this idea was regurgitated through the times, we see the effects of decadence on it, in ourselves and our art. Now on the big screen we simply get two character’s that the audience can admire.(The Apollonian completely removing himself from the experience, turning into the perfect bystander) We don’t reflect on the love between the characters because there was never much there to begin with. “But it was in the script… DIDN’T YOU READ THE SCRIPT!?” We believe we know what true love is, and because of this it devolves into a projection of physical beauty and idealistic perfection. A Perpetuation of Dionysian pleasures that are based on archaic ideals, like rescuing the damsel and being protected by the man. To break away from this we have to accept that we don’t know what true love really is and discover it along with the rest of the world as we struggle to always refine it. This evolved new form is potential strength which can echo freshly through the people. And with the right mindset it will continue to evolve, never losing to the natural decadence of the Apollonian. This is a body mindset, not an individuals mindset.(more on this later) The struggle between the Dionysian and Apollonian is about recognition. Through this recognition we can realize that our truth is lacking and can look to improve on what it's lacking. this requires rising to the challenge which will inevitably incur suffering, anxiety, fear, pain, failure. Rather then attempting to reconcile the two and face this task, it becomes easier to accept what we know already to be the truth. We resign the fight and the Dionysian begins to seep with vigor; as the ideal becomes stale and rigid through regurgitation and acceptance. Therefor turning away from reality. These are the un-evolved Apollonian ideals. I did want to say that because of Nietzsche's anger of the Apollonian and the limited information of his age, he did sell himself short on the application of his own ideas. Like economics. It has evolved dreadfully so and provides insights that are terrifying. If Nietzsche saw it now, I'm sure he would approve. However politics, he would probably still disown, but we might be able to warm him up to the idea... Yeah, okay no. Anyways I think his ideas have an amazing amount of merit in politics. But this can get icky really quickly. It's because his ideas stick right next to the ink and paper. I think I can circumvent that by using what we all know. In politics, the topics of the modern day are supposed to express the changes which will bring about the most favorable outcome for the people. What do we believe these topics to be? Abortion, gay rights, education/economy,(only recently) gun laws, etc. Everyone decides to pick a stand on these issues, of which there isn't a whole lot of variety. Both sides argue through clenching teeth until neither gets what they want, and end up settling for a sip. Not a fraction of what they need to stop a compounding issue. Now this doesn't happen all the time, but it is common, a little too common. Especially when you look at national politics. These are clear signs of a decadent culture as applying to politics. Everything is in front of our faces. Regurgitated ideas that have been widely accepted. A blind belief towards those ideas regardless of their criticisms. The Apollonian lens is stopping the evolution of these topics to get to core problems and derive real solutions. And this isn't because we lack creativity or ability. Abortion. Either you are pro-choice, believing in the rights of choosing the fate of potential humans life, in some cases or all cases; or you are Pro-life, believing that even potential human life has rights, in some cases or most cases. All very complicated, philosophical for sure, and very hard to scrutinize any of it... But why doesn't anyone ever consider the following: ? That sounds like a pro-choice argument but that is just scraping the surface of the problem. Is it possible to have a society where Roe Vs. wade wouldn't result in such drastic crime drop? Can we possibly find another problem which will make the stance against abortion the obvious choice? Well, that might be a little optimistic but these are questions we can answer. with time, patience, perseverance, resources, and knowledge. But we are being held back at the first step. And this is why decadence terrified Nietzsche and called himself dynamite. And unfortunately he was seriously wrong too, but not about the dynamite. This a perfect example as to why politics does matter. We had a drastic effect on something we had no clue we would effect. If we actually cared about these issues we are clenching our teeth for then we would look into this realm of actually really something graspable. Something that is beyond the dream of belonging to one side or the other in a stance of hacks and ideals. Yet it stays flat on the ground receiving attention from only curious individuals and biased critics. No one dare rise to the challenge and you know why? Because they know they have to stick within the realm of the dream to even pass an idea. Why work so hard for less than nothing? The goggles of 'truth' are very deterring indeed. So yes Nietzsche can very much be applied to politics. In fact it is fundamental to democracy as a whole. And maybe this is what Nietzsche saw that turned him away from politics. Someone who compares the masses to livestock couldn't possibly believe in democracy. But I see real answers in those people, the potential that exists in all of us. This charade can't go on for much longer. Reality is slowly seeping back into the dreams of the dreamers, and we are begging them to finally wake up.
Not to sound snooty or anything but I knew you wouldn't find anything. I'm quite well-versed in Nietzsche myself, and I used to say exactly what you are saying now about him. You might like to think he became a self-motivating philosopher of making yourself great, like a lot of his fans seem to think he was essentially - that's how they read him. But when you read what he actually wrote and thought then this image of him becomes very difficult to keep. The problem you also would have faced, even if you found anything, is this: Nietzsche's opinions even as he was writing Ecce Homo are suspect, because his bombasity there (even bombastic for him!) was almost too much. I think he wrote Ecce Homo just before he snapped and became catatonic, and that's even without his sister's rewriting of a lot of his notes where she worked first to align him with German nationalism, and then, even worse, with Nazi ideology. Most of the rest, sorry but there is too much text there that isn't relievent to the issue I'm raising, but this is: Yes, you can apply Nietzschian thought to political thinking, and it has been applied to economics. What is Ayn Rand if not a poor-man's Nietzsche on Wall Street? What exactly do you mean 'In fact it is fundamental to democracy as a whole' because the great Crisis that is at the core of Nietzsche's work as I understand it is not a crisis of Democracy or Idenitity spesifically, but mere nihilism. Everything in Nietzsche follows from his confronting nihilism - and really, while he might have been the earliest interesting exponant of what eventually became known as Existentialism, if you look at what he actually wrote he becomes problematic. Perhaps purposefully so, but still problematic. Edit - just saw this: As far as I'm aware there is no struggle between the Apollonian and Dionysian instincts. Isn't that sort of the point, the two either work in harmony or not at all. That was Freud who introduced a 'struggle' to these essential ideas.
Well sure, I mean I also think Ron Paul should be president and most people think he is racist and crazy. So I don't see the problem here. And identity is the solution to nihilism. Nietzsche gives us insight into that. It is in figuring out ways to demystify this mass objectification. He thought re-birthing tragedy was a good start, and we do already have a reemergence of tragedy but it's still decadent so we know there is more to the formula. Or maybe it is a sign that it finally time to switch gears. I don't let all this stuff about what happened to him in his later years get to me much. I can see his noble soul all the same. If we look for perfection we will never find it. Whatever happened wasn't ever a part of his original intentions, and I think his reaction proves that. We should recognize the 'bad' in them, sure, it gives us even more insight into their ideas. And that is just it. They resonate so much more powerfully then any sin or mishap he may have been in. The harmony was a struggle. You can't do anything about the Dionysian instinct showing through the Apollonian lens without recognizing and reconciling it. That is the struggle which refers to the suffering of nihilism and it's inevitable triumph. All Freud did was extrapolate a small part of Nietzsche's ideas within the cultural sphere to figure out some more specifics about psychology. And of course you can see the reason I look to Nietzsche over Freud for these issues. This is core stuff, that looks at a bigger picture, am I missing something here?
Mind if I ask you what specifically that is and who you draw your conclusions from? I'm always looking to expand my world view. I know you mentioned Jean-Paul Sartre. Was there anyone else?
I don't know man A lot of you are a lot more out there then me when it comes to this stuff XD I gave up trying to understand art for awhile now. Its fun to study and fun to create and fun to improve but man all this other stuff I think its totally subjective. Eh I still don't think art has changed much over the years. Only thing I can see is that you have a lot more .....like people creating into today's age maybe. Internet has given rise to web serials, web comics, rebirth of audiodramas and all that. I like that As long as people can create stuff then I think things are cool. If fact I kinda like that more people are doing stuff. Sooooo I think art is the same as before but its changing like it always does. The more you change the more you stay the same. Though in all fairness it will all depend on who you are when it comes to viewing art. I've debated @123456789 on stuff like this a few times and when it comes to mainstream stuff my school of thought is "the main stream is just a stream a lot of different things some awful, some good and some we could spend hours debating on whether or not its good or bad but they all are just what happen to be popular atm " To be honest I don't think the masses are at any fault for liking what they like and heck everyone here is part of the public mass XD And heck I'll be the first to say I'm not a literature expert or the most cultured in the arts and if art was degrading or not. Somebody posted a picture of an unmade bed and it reminded me a lot of that urinal picture by Duchamp. Same kinda thing People really like the subjective stuff and subjective stuff at least like when it comes to paintings and pictures normally isn't my style but I've always wanted to do a subjective test. Paint my toilet gold and do my business then take a picture and call it 'ROYAL FLUSH' and see how much it could sell for. Yeah, yeah we should create art for love, inspiration all that and not money but I'd be really curious if anyone would buy it. I think I just got an idea for a character or a story or something.......huh But yeah the way subjective stuff throws me for a loop sometimes XD
I don't mind. I get my conclusions from myself, I don't read philosophy in the way of seeking answers, I read philosophy to get the questions. In the end, I like finding my own way. I am building my own sort of life-philosophy. I've read quite a bit of western philosophy, some of those I like are: Aristotle Socrates (what we know of him) Anaxagoras Thomas Moore Jean-Paul Sartre Albert Camus Bertrand Russell Noam Chomsky Roland Barthes
You and me both, only way to keep the Apollonian lens in check. I should check out some of these more recent philosophers.
What do you mean 'Apollonian lens' exactly? But they are worth it, and a few others who like to argue with in my head like Plato, Marx, Kant (actually, I rather like Kant too), Nietzsche though I obviously used to be quite the fan, David Hume, and Hegel. For some reason I despite Heidegger. I just can't read more than a few pages without a powerful physical reaction against him, and it is purely personal. I don't even think it's the philosophy, I hate him the man.
Not letting our ideas run stale basically. Continually applying them to make them more then what they are now.
Is that particularly Apollonian, though? I mean, sure, the Apollonian impulse is the impulse to civilization, but in my head Apollonian doesn't mean the same thing as Critical Thinking. I guess because issues of civilization are not necessarily logical.
Sorry, my bad. I explained my sentence rather then define Apollonian lens. Apollonian lens is the lethargic development that happens to ideals when they aren't attempting to evolve. And remember that Apollonian applies to the individual. That is how Freud did his extrapolations.
I suppose I see what you mean in that sense. Also, for Freud it really wasn't individual. Trust me on that. In Civilization and It's Discontents, Freud says basically that Civilization has a kind of super-consciousness to keep order and stability for its own sake - Apollonian. The problem comes from the Pleasure Principle, the masses who want to indulge in sex and violence and drinking - Dionysian. For Freud when it was personal, it was the Apollonian effect coming from the Super-ego, the Dionysian instinct came from the Id. In society, the Apollonian effect came from societal demands and the strength of the collective - almost a hive-mind. The Super-ego in the person is an extension of this external reinforcement.
That's the same way I view philosophy. All philosophy is necessarily linked to the creators' time and place. Each of the philosophers' distinct time and place helped shape the answers they reached, and our own answers won't necessarily match up because our own time and place will be distinct from theirs. Socrates but no Plato, huh? Was it the hemlock? It was the hemlock, right? Everybody's impressed with death by hemlock.
Yeah. It was the hemlock. To explain myself what we know of Socrates comes mostly from Plato, so I guess my mentioning Socrates was also mentioning the Dialogues vicariously. Mostly, I like Socrates assertion of doubt and intellectual honesty - 'All I know is that I know nothing', that to me is perhaps the most intelligent thing ever said that I have encountered at least. That one sentence I always try to keep in the back of my mind. Plato's actual philosophy though - while one of my favourite books is his Republic I find it better as a book to argue with. I don't like the way he saw music, I find it degrading to art, and I don't really appreciate his saying the perfect society should be lead by the best and brightest who are the result of what we now know as eugenics. He's an important philosopher, and certainly a great one, just not a lot of it I agree with personally.
Sorry to stray from the philosophical side of this query. Art in many was has degraded, or perhaps I am just cynical of the modern artist. Though for me I have seen some pretty lame excuses for art that should not be viewed as such, because they lack no imagination, or talent. Sorry, but abstract is not art. It is so easy an elephant can do it (yes that is a thing if you look it up). Anyone can put random blobs on a page or canvas and call it whatever they want. Hell when was it artistic to drop paint filled eggs out of a vagina, or shoot paint out of an anus? Not making it up in the least. Been to the art museum in Seattle when I was still married, and there was a canvas hanging up with a border painted on it. Not a decorative border either just three lines of black, red, and yellow. When did printing photographs on canvas become art. Sure it looks nice, but how hard was it to push a button? Why are the lowest and laziest forms of art (using the term loosely) become so popular? There was clearly no talent or imagination in it. I guess that is the world we live in, the lowest form gets the most praise and attention for the lack of effort and quality. Sure do worry that taking the bar and throwing it on the floor is to be the new standard, at least in the art world. Sure am curious of what others think about the way art has devolved.
I'd be interested to know whether it is common, in any generation, to hold the art of the past in higher esteem and view contemporaneous art as in decline.
I know we are more talking literature and paintings but if any of you are at all interested. I think this 12 minute debate about video games touches upon some of the differences we all might be feeling about the subject or well not really (maybe?) but its a good quick debate of say something more abstract and simple to something more straight forward but highly narrative driven (sorry if narrative is the wrong word, a better one escapes me atm) But yes still an interesting conversation.
The Last of Us is more a movie with interactivity than a game with a story. The Last of Us vs Pac-Man is a movie vs a game, which is apples vs oranges. Either way, "artistic" ≠ "good". I have not played TLoU (I have read enough about it and seen enough gameplay clips to know what it is like), but I have played a game in basically the same "interactive movie" category: Bioshock Infinite. I have also played Pac-Man. If you asked me which is more artistic, then I would have no answer, but I would say I enjoyed playing Bioshock Infinite a hell of a lot more (Infinitely more? ) than playing Pac-Man, it affected me more deeply, and the present would be worse if I had never played Bioshock Infinite than if I had never played Pac-Man. I have noticed something similar with quite a few movies. Citizen Kane is supposed to be the "best" or most "classic" or most "artistic" movie ever made, and I would not argue with that simply because I do not care whether it is or is not. But I do know there are many other movies that I enjoyed more, that affected me more deeply, and that would have been a greater loss had I never seen them. The Shawshank Redemption, for example. Something with big strengths and big weaknesses is more worthwhile than something with no flaws but no passion or ambition either.
