Apollonian, Dionysian and Socratic

[Ehetlaios]

Originally Posted by 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 ...

[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.