Freethought & Rationalism Archive

0n0w1c · 04-22-2002, 11:29 AM

i am attempting to digest 'The Birth of Tragedy' by Nietzsche and i am a bit lost. i do remember reading some greek mythology books many years ago, but i do not remember much. did plato believe in the 'greek gods' or were they symbolic by his time? i am assuming Homer did believe in them. can someone help me out with were the greeks stood on their gods and when. i need this for a proper perspective while reading Nietzsche. thanks

WJ · 04-22-2002, 01:07 PM

Hello!

I'm not a big Neitzche fan, but I am rather fond of Existentialism (Hellenism v. Hebraism) and Plato's epistemic god-his own mind, which of course, is now dead.

I too would be interested in this thread's development regarding how 'smart' Plato was, and whether it explores that direction...

Good question.

Walrus

Ender · 04-22-2002, 01:19 PM

Plato hated Homer's depicton of the Gods as immature babies. Thus, he was in support of art censorship, based on this shameful representative of the gods or divinities.

As for the question whether Plato believed in god- one may direct attention at Socrates' answer to the charges of atheism in his Apologia.

~WiGGiN~

hinduwoman · 04-22-2002, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Hello!

I'm not a big Neitzche fan, but I am rather fond of Existentialism (Hellenism v. Hebraism) and Plato's epistemic god-his own mind, which of course, is now dead.

I too would be interested in this thread's development regarding how 'smart' Plato was, and whether it explores that direction...

Good question.

Walrus

clarification: Existentialism is a philopshy of 19th and 20th century. Hellenism and Hebraism was coined by Matthew Arnold, to discuss his theories about culture and anarchy.

Plato, I think, believed in a kind of One Soul, who is God. He was probably in two minds about actual existence of Athene and Apollo.

Bill · 04-22-2002, 06:00 PM

I will give you a snippet from <a href="http://www.agnostic.org/BIBLEH-10.htm" target="_blank">my own writings</a> where I make reference to one of the key concepts from that work:

Quote:

Friedrich Nietzsche, in his first (and really only) major book, Die Geburt der Trag�die, 1872 (The Birth of Tragedy, 1968), began by defining a dichotomy in which he labeled the two parts as Apollonian and Dionysian. Nietzsche identified the Dionysian (or pleasure seeking culture) as the first to develop, while the Apollonian (or intellect based culture) came along later. The Dionysian culture involved a near total absorption in the passionate affairs of man, while the Apollonian involved an extirpation of passion.

Nietzsche, apparently modeling his argument on Hegel's logic concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, asserted that either Apollonian or Dionysian standing alone was incomplete. The greatest Greek tragedies were those where a synthesis (or fusion) of the two forms occurred.

Later, in Also Sprach Zarathustra 1883-4 (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1954), this concept was extended by Nietzsche to contrast the fusion of Apollonian and Dionysian forms with most of the fundamental concepts of Christianity, which are most certainly Apollonian alone.

Nietzsche was, after all, not writing a dry work for academics that commented on how things were in ancient Greece. Instead, Nietzsche was using his writings about ancient Greece to illustrate what he felt was right and/or wrong with modern Western Civilization. So it is that we get quotes from The Birth of Tragedy like this one:

Quote:

Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.
from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, p.23, Walter Kaufmann transl.

Here, Nietzsche is telling people that the essence of Christian theology is to tell people that life here on Earth is nauseatingly disgusting, and that the best thing that can happen is for all of us to die and go to Heaven to a better life to come. We see echoes of this sort of Christian philosophy today in a young mother who kills her children and herself so that they can all be in a "better place" (i.e., "with Jesus"). Of course, if atheism is true (and Nietzsche can almost certainly be viewed as an atheist), then this is a sacrifice that loses everything in return for gaining nothing. That, says Nietzsche, is the ultimate tragedy.

== Bill

Eudaimonist · 04-22-2002, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill:
Here, Nietzsche is telling people that the essence of Christian theology is to tell people that life here on Earth is nauseatingly disgusting, and that the best thing that can happen is for all of us to die and go to Heaven to a better life to come. [...] Of course, if atheism is true (and Nietzsche can almost certainly be viewed as an atheist), then this is a sacrifice that loses everything in return for gaining nothing. That, says Nietzsche, is the ultimate tragedy.

I agree with Nietzsche in this.

Laurentius · 04-23-2002, 01:31 AM

One who attempts to create myths cannot seriously believe in gods - Plato definitely believed in himself. I have the feeling that Plato felt he was "divinely" enlightened (that is, in comparison with his contemporaries), something similar with Jesus's missionarism.

As for tragedy, Nietzsche's work and additional commentaries on it have helped me figure out what tragedy is all about. I mean, is "Titanic" a tragedy? Of course not. It needs a hero, attempting to break an impossible limit, for the sake of his human fellows, and knowing that he'll be crashed in the attempt (which will eventually happen) to make a tragedy.

a fruitful reading, I'll do it again some time

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

WJ · 04-23-2002, 05:08 AM

Laurentus!

Great point about Plato. I feel the same way. That is also the point about Christian existential sources (Ecclesiastes-Hebraism v. NT Hellenism) which you hinted at with regard to Jesus' view of the greeks worship practices.

Anyway, I think of 'the birth of a tragedy' viz. Titanic as the philosophy behind the creation of the great vessel itself. Perhaps the hero was the human mind, much like the anaolgy to greek Hellenism and Plato.

In other words, the point that must be made is that the finitude and temporality of the human mind in the creation of concepts in the mind, then seeing them develop into their rightful intended purpose, may result in fallibility afterall.

So, we have Greek philosopher's who somehow claim they have all the answers. How could this be? If one cannot create a perfect 'thing', surely a metaphysical timeless concept (perfect Platonic concepts)would be much harder to make 'absolute'. Unless of course you use the consciousness metaphor. And if you did, Platonic concepts die when conciousness ends. In that sense, how could Plato's analytical timeless concepts be correct?

Geek Hellenism somehow justified these concepts of absolutes in one's mind. The birth of this tragedy lies in human egoism.

My interpretation of course... .

Walrus

Laurentius · 04-24-2002, 04:18 AM

WJ

Still, I think you would go too far to think that the movie we've seen is a tragedy. When Antigone challenges Creon, the former representing a set of values and the latter representing the exact opposite set of values, it is inevitable that she should end in failure (although she succedes in turning the absolute limit into a relative one). The "Titanic" shows a ship that finally sinks as a result of random blunders. And is there any hero that dies in the event? No, there are simple victims, not heroes. There's no tragedy without a hero, you know.

Speaking of which, what do you think of the main character in the song "Hotel California", then? Is he the protagonist of some kind of tragedy?

AVE

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

WJ · 04-24-2002, 04:52 AM

Lau!

Well, though I'm not an Eagle's fan, I would say the story is both, because it takes a character to make a drama. In that same regard, if the essence of a 'character' is consciousness, then the drama as seen from the Titanic is a tragic happenstance resulting from the acts of people who posess this same level of consciousness.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the thinking mind itself (an idea) becomes the birth of a tragedy here. The Titanic represented the creative technology of the day, only to succumb to the same fintude that parallels those same mind's that created the great vessel in the first place. What is the definition of a tragedy? The protangonist was portrayed by the naval architect/designer who was on-board in deep dread knowing the end [finitude] was near, in his mind. However, his mind represents other minds in this same tragedy and drama of finitude and the human condition. Or, in life itself.

Whether it is a designer of a race car or a boat, to see failure occur from technological advancement, brings about this sense of tragedy and drama. Where and what comprises tragedy in the mind? The mind itself(?). Don't we seek to achieve success? What is the price, failure? Why seek advancement to begin with? The 'birth of a tragedy' here?

It seems all these things require human's [the mind] to move it forward and make it happen.

What do you think?

Walrus

04-22-2002, 11:29 AM	#1
0n0w1c Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: usa Posts: 68	questions about greek philosophers and their gods i am attempting to digest 'The Birth of Tragedy' by Nietzsche and i am a bit lost. i do remember reading some greek mythology books many years ago, but i do not remember much. did plato believe in the 'greek gods' or were they symbolic by his time? i am assuming Homer did believe in them. can someone help me out with were the greeks stood on their gods and when. i need this for a proper perspective while reading Nietzsche. thanks

04-23-2002, 01:31 AM	#7
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	One who attempts to create myths cannot seriously believe in gods - Plato definitely believed in himself. I have the feeling that Plato felt he was "divinely" enlightened (that is, in comparison with his contemporaries), something similar with Jesus's missionarism. As for tragedy, Nietzsche's work and additional commentaries on it have helped me figure out what tragedy is all about. I mean, is "Titanic" a tragedy? Of course not. It needs a hero, attempting to break an impossible limit, for the sake of his human fellows, and knowing that he'll be crashed in the attempt (which will eventually happen) to make a tragedy. a fruitful reading, I'll do it again some time [ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

04-24-2002, 04:18 AM	#9
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	WJ Still, I think you would go too far to think that the movie we've seen is a tragedy. When Antigone challenges Creon, the former representing a set of values and the latter representing the exact opposite set of values, it is inevitable that she should end in failure (although she succedes in turning the absolute limit into a relative one). The "Titanic" shows a ship that finally sinks as a result of random blunders. And is there any hero that dies in the event? No, there are simple victims, not heroes. There's no tragedy without a hero, you know. Speaking of which, what do you think of the main character in the song "Hotel California", then? Is he the protagonist of some kind of tragedy? AVE [ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2002, 01:07 PM	#2
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hello! I'm not a big Neitzche fan, but I am rather fond of Existentialism (Hellenism v. Hebraism) and Plato's epistemic god-his own mind, which of course, is now dead. I too would be interested in this thread's development regarding how 'smart' Plato was, and whether it explores that direction... Good question. Walrus

04-22-2002, 01:19 PM	#3
Ender Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Lusitania Colony Posts: 658	Plato hated Homer's depicton of the Gods as immature babies. Thus, he was in support of art censorship, based on this shameful representative of the gods or divinities. As for the question whether Plato believed in god- one may direct attention at Socrates' answer to the charges of atheism in his Apologia. ~WiGGiN~

04-23-2002, 05:08 AM	#8
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Laurentus! Great point about Plato. I feel the same way. That is also the point about Christian existential sources (Ecclesiastes-Hebraism v. NT Hellenism) which you hinted at with regard to Jesus' view of the greeks worship practices. Anyway, I think of 'the birth of a tragedy' viz. Titanic as the philosophy behind the creation of the great vessel itself. Perhaps the hero was the human mind, much like the anaolgy to greek Hellenism and Plato. In other words, the point that must be made is that the finitude and temporality of the human mind in the creation of concepts in the mind, then seeing them develop into their rightful intended purpose, may result in fallibility afterall. So, we have Greek philosopher's who somehow claim they have all the answers. How could this be? If one cannot create a perfect 'thing', surely a metaphysical timeless concept (perfect Platonic concepts)would be much harder to make 'absolute'. Unless of course you use the consciousness metaphor. And if you did, Platonic concepts die when conciousness ends. In that sense, how could Plato's analytical timeless concepts be correct? Geek Hellenism somehow justified these concepts of absolutes in one's mind. The birth of this tragedy lies in human egoism. My interpretation of course... . Walrus

04-24-2002, 04:52 AM	#10
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Lau! Well, though I'm not an Eagle's fan, I would say the story is both, because it takes a character to make a drama. In that same regard, if the essence of a 'character' is consciousness, then the drama as seen from the Titanic is a tragic happenstance resulting from the acts of people who posess this same level of consciousness. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the thinking mind itself (an idea) becomes the birth of a tragedy here. The Titanic represented the creative technology of the day, only to succumb to the same fintude that parallels those same mind's that created the great vessel in the first place. What is the definition of a tragedy? The protangonist was portrayed by the naval architect/designer who was on-board in deep dread knowing the end [finitude] was near, in his mind. However, his mind represents other minds in this same tragedy and drama of finitude and the human condition. Or, in life itself. Whether it is a designer of a race car or a boat, to see failure occur from technological advancement, brings about this sense of tragedy and drama. Where and what comprises tragedy in the mind? The mind itself(?). Don't we seek to achieve success? What is the price, failure? Why seek advancement to begin with? The 'birth of a tragedy' here? It seems all these things require human's [the mind] to move it forward and make it happen. What do you think? Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.