Glad they've been useful for you. No, I'd read them, and reread them. The whole work is quite good and worth reflecting upon -- despite Nietzsche's own later self-assessment.
Just finished reading this work. Was my first text i read from Nietzche. Which one do you recommend to start with? I was struggling with this at first, it almost feels to systematic. Is every book from him like this? Really helpfull video by the way!
This is the text I recommend starting with, since it is indeed his first major work. In point of fact, Nietzsche wrote two fairly systematic works - this and the Genealogy. They're just as much his works as his other less systematic texts
Dr. Sadler, I had a question about one of Nietzsche's ideas. Didn't everything reconcile at the end of The Eumenides? Who had to suffer? Athena? The Eumenides?
It's crazy, I'm reading these texts before watching this and I don't comprehend anything like what your saying. Infact none of it makes hardly any sense at all to me. When I finish reading, I'm thinking , I have no idea what I just read. It's making me feel like I'm missing something, or just not ready to read this yet.....
@GregoryBSadler Yes Sir! My approach is to read about 1-5, then watch Part one, 5 through 10 and watch part 2...... I will continue to end, and then reread. I very much appreciate these lectures and your insights, I get a lot out of them. Thank you.
Gregory. Thank you for all your great lectures here on RUclips. Why is "Ages of Nihilism and Renewal in Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy" the last (opposed to the fifth) of this series? Shouldn't I watch after part four of "The Birth of Tragedy"?
If only the verse: And then Ezekiel got really stoned on shrooms, wasn't taken out of the bible, this Apollonian/Dionysiac balance wouldn't be an issue.
I think if you do some creative digging about - at the level of full texts, rather than passages - I think you could probably find some equivalences in the biblical lit
I'd say these categories aren't particularly helpful in understanding this text here -- at least not the way you're expressing them. See if you can spell out what your questions is a bit more clearly, and I'll give it a stab
In the video you disagree with Nietzsche, who says that subjectivity is not a virtue for authorship. You than give your own opinion on when an author should be subjective and when he should be objective. You say, that an 18 year old is not capable of being subjective in a good way, but an aged man could through his experience be subjective in a good way. For me this had something of Aristotle, who said that you could reach eudaimonia (something what would give a objectivity to the person´s Dasein), while still alive. When you read this and want to answer my questions, I got another for me very important two, which are a bit more practical: When music follows a repetitive and organized structure it focuses directly on us liking it by something we cannot control. In other words it uses a drive of us to please us. There is also Music, which does not repeat melodies, but this music seems strange to us. Is this a point I disagree with Nietzsche or have I overlooked something? When Seurat uses his knowledge about colors to trick our eye and make us like a painting, would that automatically make him an Apollonian painter or does this element´s usage determine the category of the painter? However, this tricking of the observer to reach an illusion of a strait line is a part of the Dorian Art. Thx a lot for the great videos and in advance! If my questions are bad, please ignore them...I still have a lot to learn.
Aristotle doesn't speak in terms of "subjectivity" or "objectivity", or "dasein" -- so, you're reading quite a bit into his thought there. Not that one can't do that -- but not something that I'd tie in with Aristotle's notion of eudaimonia -- any more than the categories people often bring of egoism/altruism to Aristotle's thought. It's something one can do, but it doesn't usually turn out all that productively as a line of reflection Yes, it's possible to be subjective in a good way -- not something most achieve. But, that doesn't mean that the opposite of either kind, in this context, would be "objective." Nietzsche is reacting against the kind of art where the author/creator is tying it a lot to their individual, particular subjectivity -- and rejecting the kind of thinking that sees that as a desirable thing in art. I'm simply saying he goes a bit too far. Apollonian and Dionysiac are not the only possible ways to characterize art. Keep reading on -- there's also the Socratic/Alexandrian. and those three are just the "noble" responses -- there's others as well. I don't see where you're getting that N. thinks music doesn't repeat melodies. It's not the same thing to say it doesn't JUST do that as to say that it has no connection with melodies. There's some music that has much less stress on melody, to be sure . . .
Glad they've been useful for you.
No, I'd read them, and reread them. The whole work is quite good and worth reflecting upon -- despite Nietzsche's own later self-assessment.
You're welcome -- glad you liked it
No, it's more something that helps one deal with the primal, contradictory, interplay of nature
Just finished reading this work. Was my first text i read from Nietzche. Which one do you recommend to start with? I was struggling with this at first, it almost feels to systematic. Is every book from him like this?
Really helpfull video by the way!
This is the text I recommend starting with, since it is indeed his first major work. In point of fact, Nietzsche wrote two fairly systematic works - this and the Genealogy. They're just as much his works as his other less systematic texts
Dr. Sadler,
I had a question about one of Nietzsche's ideas. Didn't everything reconcile at the end of The Eumenides? Who had to suffer? Athena? The Eumenides?
How is that about Nietzsche's ideas?
you look like a cross between penn jilette and eric wareheim. great lecture thanks!
You're very welcome
You're welcome!
thanks!
It's crazy, I'm reading these texts before watching this and I don't comprehend anything like what your saying. Infact none of it makes hardly any sense at all to me. When I finish reading, I'm thinking , I have no idea what I just read. It's making me feel like I'm missing something, or just not ready to read this yet.....
You’ll need to reread most likely.
And ditch the hyperbolic “don’t comprehend anything”, “no idea”, which is likely false
@GregoryBSadler Yes Sir!
My approach is to read about 1-5, then watch Part one, 5 through 10 and watch part 2......
I will continue to end, and then reread.
I very much appreciate these lectures and your insights, I get a lot out of them.
Thank you.
When Nietzsche says, "mirror of illusion," in regards to the lyric poet or Dionysiac artist, is the mirror of illusion the primal oneness with nature?
I've been interested in Nietzsche for quite some time now. I just started BT! Your help is greatly appreciated, thank you.
Great lecture, thank you for sharing this.
Gregory. Thank you for all your great lectures here on RUclips. Why is "Ages of Nihilism and Renewal in Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy" the last (opposed to the fifth) of this series? Shouldn't I watch after part four of "The Birth of Tragedy"?
You should read the video descriptions, and you'll thereby answer your own questions
If only the verse: And then Ezekiel got really stoned on shrooms, wasn't taken out of the bible, this Apollonian/Dionysiac balance wouldn't be an issue.
I think if you do some creative digging about - at the level of full texts, rather than passages - I think you could probably find some equivalences in the biblical lit
Great.
So when I got that right: You are allowed to be subjective when you reached a certain grade of Eudaimon? Isn´t that again being objective?
I'd say these categories aren't particularly helpful in understanding this text here -- at least not the way you're expressing them.
See if you can spell out what your questions is a bit more clearly, and I'll give it a stab
In the video you disagree with Nietzsche, who says that subjectivity is not a virtue for authorship. You than give your own opinion on when an author should be subjective and when he should be objective. You say, that an 18 year old is not capable of being subjective in a good way, but an aged man could through his experience be subjective in a good way. For me this had something of Aristotle, who said that you could reach eudaimonia (something what would give a objectivity to the person´s Dasein), while still alive.
When you read this and want to answer my questions, I got another for me very important two, which are a bit more practical: When music follows a repetitive and organized structure it focuses directly on us liking it by something we cannot control. In other words it uses a drive of us to please us. There is also Music, which does not repeat melodies, but this music seems strange to us. Is this a point I disagree with Nietzsche or have I overlooked something?
When Seurat uses his knowledge about colors to trick our eye and make us like a painting, would that automatically make him an Apollonian painter or does this element´s usage determine the category of the painter? However, this tricking of the observer to reach an illusion of a strait line is a part of the Dorian Art.
Thx a lot for the great videos and in advance! If my questions are bad, please ignore them...I still have a lot to learn.
Aristotle doesn't speak in terms of "subjectivity" or "objectivity", or "dasein" -- so, you're reading quite a bit into his thought there. Not that one can't do that -- but not something that I'd tie in with Aristotle's notion of eudaimonia -- any more than the categories people often bring of egoism/altruism to Aristotle's thought. It's something one can do, but it doesn't usually turn out all that productively as a line of reflection
Yes, it's possible to be subjective in a good way -- not something most achieve. But, that doesn't mean that the opposite of either kind, in this context, would be "objective." Nietzsche is reacting against the kind of art where the author/creator is tying it a lot to their individual, particular subjectivity -- and rejecting the kind of thinking that sees that as a desirable thing in art. I'm simply saying he goes a bit too far.
Apollonian and Dionysiac are not the only possible ways to characterize art. Keep reading on -- there's also the Socratic/Alexandrian. and those three are just the "noble" responses -- there's others as well.
I don't see where you're getting that N. thinks music doesn't repeat melodies. It's not the same thing to say it doesn't JUST do that as to say that it has no connection with melodies. There's some music that has much less stress on melody, to be sure . . .