30:09 for an outstanding poetic exposition of the opposition of the Dionysian and the Appolonian, cf. Thomas Mann, Death in Venice. Yes, of all places, Venice, the city that would play such a crucial role in the life of Nietzsche.
49:52 Is there a possibility to keep the tension between the immanent aesthetic and the ethical transcendent? That would mean both affirming life AND affirming suffering as indispensable to having an optimal grip on life. Collapsing either pole would lead to a reductio ad absurdum, on the immanent being a purely hedonic lifestyle and on the transcendent side a completely ascetic fleeing of the world and the body
I think this is a promising approach. The question would be how these two orientations can be made to work together (or in productive opposition) rather than getting in the way of each other. Can one serve two masters? (or is that the wrong way to frame it?)
1:02:26 and God saw that it was very good. Now that was not said about a transcendent reality. It was about this side, the immanent side, since everything outside God is already immanentized in a sense. My interpretation out of this is that yes, life here in this life already is infinitely valuable. But Christianity can very much argue that there is even more to that. And eternity is not the infinite time span. The kingdom of God exists outside of time and space. These categories are purely immanent after creation.
Very excited to listen to this. Couldn't think of two better people to talk with each other!
30:09 for an outstanding poetic exposition of the opposition of the Dionysian and the Appolonian, cf. Thomas Mann, Death in Venice. Yes, of all places, Venice, the city that would play such a crucial role in the life of Nietzsche.
Thanks for having me on the channel, great questions and insights on your behalf!
49:52 Is there a possibility to keep the tension between the immanent aesthetic and the ethical transcendent? That would mean both affirming life AND affirming suffering as indispensable to having an optimal grip on life. Collapsing either pole would lead to a reductio ad absurdum, on the immanent being a purely hedonic lifestyle and on the transcendent side a completely ascetic fleeing of the world and the body
I think this is a promising approach. The question would be how these two orientations can be made to work together (or in productive opposition) rather than getting in the way of each other. Can one serve two masters? (or is that the wrong way to frame it?)
1:02:26 and God saw that it was very good. Now that was not said about a transcendent reality. It was about this side, the immanent side, since everything outside God is already immanentized in a sense. My interpretation out of this is that yes, life here in this life already is infinitely valuable. But Christianity can very much argue that there is even more to that. And eternity is not the infinite time span. The kingdom of God exists outside of time and space. These categories are purely immanent after creation.