Apollonian, Dionysian and Socratic

[Ehetlaios]

OK.

I start this new thread because I can not find the old one where the conversation took place, I do not remember the name. But I don't think it matters noiw anyway.

In that old conversation a few of us had a discussion about Nietzsche and Lakonian said his opinion that he doesn't like him because he downgrades Socrates.

At the time I did not have much to reply since, even though I like both, I could not pick one. However, I remember a Friday morning of August when I read a topic from Truth Bearer name "The spirit of ancient Greece", I think, where he wrote how Nietzsche classifies the spirit in Apollonian, Dionysian and Socratic, in his work "The birth of tragedy".

The same day I went to the local bookstore and got a copy of the "Birth of tragedy", but I did not have the time to start reading it. I started it about 4 days ago, finished it yesterday afternoon. As I was reading it I remembered what Lakonian had written about the Socrates thing, so it made some sense to reply, as I now have an answer... :)

We first have to classify all 3 spirits.

The Apollonian spirit one of the ancient Hellene, as Nietzsche describes it and originates from the god of Sun and Knowledge, Apollo. It's the spirit of the plain, serious, strong individual, who relies on himself and his emotions. The Apollonain person usually thinks a lot, creates alternate realities in his mind, basically, as I like writing it, ventures in his labyrinths to fight his minotaurs and no Ariadne is there to help him. The Apollonian is the dreamer.

The Dionysian spirit originates from Dionysus and the eastern chthonic and magic cults that influenced Hellas through the centuries, whenever the Hellenes came in contact with the easterners. The Dionysian spirit is the one that prefers to have fun, by taking part in all kinds of orgiastic pleasures. In the eyes of the Apollonian person, as Nietzsche writes, the Dionysian person seems barbaric and untamed yet very very complex and interesting.

The Socratic person originates from Socrates and it's the spirit that uses just plain and simple logic. Orthologism, to counter everything in life, to find the truth. The Socratic person is the seeker, but in Nietzsche's mind, the Socratic person will always seek but never find.

I agree with Nietzsche.

Logic (which Socrates personifies) is good. But not always. It leads to a stagnated life, devoid of emotion, of feelings, unlike the other two spirits, which, when combined, produce what our forefathers called the Ancient Tragedy. In the end, Socrates did not do any good. He did not preach anything and HE KNEW IT (Nietzsche implies) that's why he drank the poison. He had no other option, no goal in life. All he did, was just to prove to everyone how wrong they were.

See it this way: Emotions or Logic?

It depends on what you choose.

I prefer seeing life as a canvas.

If I have to give a colour to my logic, I'd give white. It's cold, it's ruthless.

But to my emotions, all kinds of colours. Black, red, yellow, green, fireblond...

I prefer drawing my life with my emotions and use some logic, once in a while than do the opposite.

I'm gonna close with what Nietzsche wrote in Ecce Homo (about his "Birth of tragedy"): Socratism is the decadence of the Hellenes. Orthologism, as a means to subdue life, to subdue instincts, to subdue passion.


In other words: Have fun. Life is short.

[Ehetlaios]

And to add: Nietzsche considered Socrates his mentor. And also his greatest enemy.

[Lakonian]

Well, i never thouht id see this side of you brother.(meaning the philosophical interest)

I still say your friend is wrong.

For if he actualy read Plato who would have seen that is all Socrates thoughts and not his.

This is where people get confused about the whole Socratic thing and his little famous qoute "all i know is that i know nothing". At the end we all dont know anything because ultimate truth is like achieving Infinity knowledge in one instance...how can thatactualy be achieved??? It can, because it all comes with some sort of experience right? No fully right. You see Socrates believed in the fact that we all hold infinite knowledge and that it can be unlocked, you only need to search "Know thyself, and you will know the secrets of the gods and the universe".

I dont see how if you seek truth you will never find it...thats is absolutely a blind comment considering our ancestors who lived on the basis of absolute truth achieved so much!

If we had no Socratic though we would still think the Earth is flat!

Alot of people think that Platos Republic is totaly his knowledge when it is not. Evru single Book 1-10 is scenarios with Socrates always being the medium for Truth, just as the mystic side of things rises your feet of the ground he pulls you right back and puts you ina spin so that when you cone to, you begin to ask the question yourself and not let somebody who speaks cunning blind you.

I dont agree with Nietzsche.

[Ehetlaios]

Was it Gorgias the book where Plato says something like "Socrates was sick for a very long time"?

Socrates was aware of his condition. In any case, I suggest you read the "birth of tragedy" and the first chapters of "twilight of the idols" and then you tell me.

[Ehetlaios]

THE PROBLEM OF SOCRATES

1

Concerning life, the wisest men of all ages have judged alike: it is no good. Always and everywhere one has heard the same sound from their mouths--a sound full of doubt, full of melancholy, full of weariness of life, full of resistance to life. Even Socrates said, as he died: "To live--that means to be sick a long time: I owe Asclepius the Savior a rooster." Even Socrates was tired of it. What does that evidence? What does it evince? Formerly one would have said (--oh, it has been said, and loud enough, and especially by our pessimists): "At least something of all this must be true! The consensus of the sages evidences the truth." Shall we still talk like that today? May we? "At least something must be sick here," we retort. These wisest men of all ages--they should first be scrutinized closely. Were they all perhaps shaky on their legs? late? tottery? decadents? Could it be that wisdom appears on earth as a raven, inspired by a little whiff of carrion?

2

This irreverent thought that the great sages are types of decline first occurred to me precisely in a case where it is most strongly opposed by both scholarly and unscholarly prejudice: I recognized Socrates and Plato to be symptoms of degeneration, tools of the Greek dissolution, pseudo-Greek, anti-Greek (Birth of Tragedy, 1872). The consensus of the sages--I comprehended this ever more clearly--proves least of all that they were right in what they agreed on: it shows rather that they themselves, these wisest men, agreed in some physiological respect, and hence adopted the same negative attitude to life--had to adopt it. Judgments, judgments of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are stupidities. One must by all means stretch out one's fingers and make the attempt to grasp this amazing finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, for they are an interested party, even a bone of contention, and not judges; not by the dead, for a different reason. For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life is thus an objection to him, a question mark concerning his wisdom, an un-wisdom. Indeed? All these great wise men--they were not only decadents but not wise at all? But I return to the problem of Socrates.

3

In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum--that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

4

Socrates' decadence is suggested not only by the admitted wantonness and anarchy of his instincts, but also by the hypertrophy of the logical faculty and that sarcasm of the rachitic which distinguishes him. Nor should we forget those auditory hallucinations which, as "the daimonion of Socrates," have been interpreted religiously. Everything in him is exaggerated, buffo, a caricature; everything is at the same time concealed, ulterior, subterranean. I seek to comprehend what idiosyncrasy begot that Socratic equation of reason, virtue, and happiness: that most bizarre of all equations which, moreover, is opposed to all the instincts of the earlier Greeks.

5

With Socrates, Greek taste changes in favor of dialectics. What really happened there? Above all, a noble taste is thus vanquished; with dialectics the plebs come to the top. Before Socrates, dialectic manners were repudiated in good society: they were considered bad manners, they were compromising. The young were warned against them. Furthermore, all such presentations of one's reasons were distrusted. Honest things, like honest men, do not carry their reasons in their hands like that. It is indecent to show all five fingers. What must first be proved is worth little. Wherever authority still forms part of good bearing, where one does not give reasons but commands, the dialectician is a kind of buffoon: one laughs at him, one does not take him seriously. Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what really happened there?

6

One chooses dialectic only when one has no other means. One knows that one arouses mistrust with it, that it is not very persuasive. Nothing is easier to erase than a dialectical effect: the experience of every meeting at which there are speeches proves this. It can only be self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. One must have to enforce one's right: until one reaches that point, one makes no use of it. The Jews were dialecticians for that reason; Reynard the Fox was one--and Socrates too?

7

Is the irony of Socrates an expression of revolt? Of plebeian ressentiment? Does he, as one oppressed, enjoy his own ferocity in the knife-thrusts of his syllogisms? Does he avenge himself on the noble people whom he fascinates? As a dialectician, one holds a merciless tool in one's hand; one can become a tyrant by means of it; one compromises those one conquers. The dialectician leaves it to his opponent to prove that he is no idiot: he makes one furious and helpless at the same time. The dialectician renders the intellect of his opponent powerless. Indeed? Is dialectic only a form of revenge in Socrates?

8

I have given to understand how it was that Socrates could repel: it is therefore all the more necessary to explain his fascination. That he discovered a new kind of agon, that he became its first fencing master for the noble circles of Athens, is one point. He fascinated by appealing to the agonistic impulse of the Greeks--he introduced a variation into the wrestling match between young men and youths. Socrates was also a great erotic.

9

But Socrates guessed even more. He saw through his noble Athenians; he comprehended that his own case, his idiosyncrasy, was no longer exceptional. The same kind of degeneration was quietly developing everywhere: old Athens was coming to an end. And Socrates understood that all the world needed him--his means, his cure, his personal artifice of self-preservation. Everywhere the instincts were in anarchy everywhere one was within five paces of excess: monstrum in animo was the general danger. "The impulses want to play the tyrant; one must invent a counter-tyrant who is stronger. When the physiognomist had revealed to Socrates who he was--a cave of bad appetites--the great master of irony let slip another word which is the key to his character. "This is true," he said, "but I mastered them all." How did Socrates become master over himself? His case was, at bottom, merely the extreme case, only the most striking instance of what was then beginning to be a universal distress: no one was any longer master over himself, the instincts turned against each other. He fascinated, being this extreme case; his awe-inspiring ugliness proclaimed him as such to all who could see: he fascinated, of course, even more as an answer, a solution, an apparent cure of this case.

10

When one finds it necessary to turn reason into a tyrant, as Socrates did, the danger cannot be slight that something else will play the tyrant. Rationality was then hit upon as the savior; neither Socrates nor his "patients" had any choice about being rational: it was de rigeur, it was their last resort. The fanaticism with which all Greek reflection throws itself upon rationality betrays a desperate situation; there was danger, there was but one choice: either to perish or--to be absurdly rational. The moralism of the Greek philosophers from Plato on is pathologically conditioned; so is their esteem of dialectics. Reason-virtue-happiness, that means merely that one must imitate Socrates and counter the dark appetites with a permanent daylight--the daylight of reason. One must be clever, clear, bright at any price: any concession to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downward.

11

I have given to understand how it was that Socrates fascinated: he seemed to be a physician, a savior. Is it necessary to go on to demonstrate the error in his faith in "rationality at any price"? It is a self-deception on the part of philosophers and moralists if they believe that they are extricating themselves from decadence when they merely wage war against it. Extrication lies beyond their strength: what they choose as a means, as salvation, is itself but another expression of decadence; they change its expression, but they do not get rid of decadence itself. Socrates was a misunderstanding; the whole improvement-morality, including the Christian, was a misunderstanding. The most blinding daylight; rationality at any price; life, bright, cold, cautious, conscious, without instinct, in opposition to the instincts--all this too was a mere disease, another disease, and by no means a return to "virtue," to "health," to happiness. To have to fight the instincts--that is the formula of decadence: as long as life is ascending, happiness equals instinct.

12

Did he himself still comprehend this, this most brilliant of all self-outwitters? Was this what he said to himself in the end, in the wisdom of his courage to die? Socrates wanted to die: not Athens, but he himself chose the hemlock; he forced Athens to sentence him. "Socrates is no physician," he said softly to himself, "here death alone is the physician. Socrates himself has merely been sick a long time."

[Flipper]

Ehetlaie...
Remember that what Nietzsche proposed about Socrates, is basically what a typical sofist ends up with. Socrates was condemned to death for being a sofist but that is as we know completely wrong. He was not...

So basically, i'm not really sure if a "Socratic person" is what Nietzsche was seeking for.

[Flipper]

For if he actualy read Plato who would have seen that is all Socrates thoughts and not his.

There is an interresting theory saying Socrates was a madeup by Plato. Never existed... He used him in his writtings to cover himself.

It is an interresting thought. Don't know how realistic it is, but in a time where you might have been afraid to be innovative with your thoughts, such a solution would be a good way to avoid unpleasant accusations.

[Ehetlaios]

So basically, i'm not really sure if a "Socratic person" is what Nietzsche was seeking for.

He sought the Dionysian person.

[Lakonian]

Im way to busy at the moment lads...im gonna be gone for a while..justa quick line to say that you need to study Socrates rather than read him. And what i mena is his actual teachings.

Life, is but a thought.....that is what i have taken from him.

[Cadmus]

I thought Nietzsche was fond of Azura Mazda the Zoroastrism (hope i spelled that right)

He refers a lot to it in his Zarathrusta book...i think Nietzsche was a nice philosopher but confused in many religions and believes ..he mixes Socratism with Zoroastrism and more...i don't feel like reading any more books from him after reading Zarathrustra and what you guys have posted about his Socratism ...:dry:

[Ehetlaios]

I thought Nietzsche was fond of Azura Mazda the Zoroastrism (hope i spelled that right)

He refers a lot to it in his Zarathrusta book...i think Nietzsche was a nice philosopher but confused in many religions and believes ..he mixes Socratism with Zoroastrism and more...i don't feel like reading any more books from him after reading Zarathrustra and what you guys have posted about his Socratism ...:dry:


:rolleyes:

[Andrew]

Well guys here ae some things I have to add:

1) We have three Socrates :
-Platonic Socrates
-Xenophontian Socrates
-Real Socrates (which we don't know)

Some say that Plato has exaggerated with his Socrates. Among them we have Nietzsche who said: "The platonic Socrates is pure invention. He's overloaded with Virtues in a superhuman manner. That's why the testimony of Xenophon is more close to reality".
Others , like Bertrand Russel said "we have the tendency to concider that Xenophon's Socrates ins closer to reality , because Plato was more creative and able to add virtues on his Socrates. This argument is not always wright. The description of an idiot on what an intelligent person said is never correct ,because the stupid tends to change the frase of the intelligent in terms that he can understand. I'd rather prefer an intelligent enemy on mine critisize me instead of a stupid friend. ... So I think that Platos description is more accurate."
And because B.Russel considered Xenophon "idiot" George Vlastos responded him :"I wouldn't call idiot a man that crossed Asia with his 10000 , hunted by the Persians and managed to survive. I would like to see what Mr. Russel would of have done".
If I have to choose a side ..I think that Plato has exaggerated a little bit with his socrates , but that doesn't deny the fact that Socrates was Platos mentor. Socrates achievement was the fact that he turned the philisophical quest to human and identified the essence of a man in his soul (psyche). Before Socrates , the presocratics tried to expalin nature and left human out of their quest , maybe because their laws of cause-effect didn't work with the human soul.
Returning to Nietzsche: I understood the Apollonian and Dionysiac parts as two parts of the same person. The Apollonian part reminds us humans that we are rational animals ,and is related with what we have to do as citizens during day light. The Dionysiac part from other part reminds us that ...yes..we are rational , but also animals , so we need some of irrational emotions to fill our life and find a meaning in it.That is what another Socratic Student said. The Edonist Aristippos from Kyrene said:" Virtue is not the perpuse of life. The perpuse is happyness and Virtue is the instrument that serves to reach the purpuse".So Virtue is what ever can make you happy.
Now to Nietzsche's Socratic type ..I think he ment that this type is the person that is only Apollonian without having a Dionysiac part. Socrates is never happy or sad ...he is always dialectising to achieve truth and knowledge.And because he has lost his Dionysiac part he has no emotions and so there is no meaning on his life ...that's why he is willing to die later, because he don't give a domn about live or die.