Current Book Discussion - Nietzsche's 'Philosophy In The Tragic Age Of The Greeks'

[Nile577]

Philosophy In The Tragic Age Of The Greeks (1873)
by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)



'For Nietzsche the Age of Greek Tragedy was indeed a tragic age. He saw in it the rise and climax of values so dear to him that their subsequent drop into a catastrophe (in the person of Socrates-Plato) was as clearly foreshadowed as though these were events taking place in the theatre.

And so in this work, unpublished in his own day but written at the same time that his The Birth of Tragedy had so outraged the German professorate as to imperil his own academic career, his most deeply felt task was one of education. He wanted to present the culture of the Greeks as a paradigm to his young German contemporaries who might thus be persuaded to work towards a state of culture of their own.' - Marianne Cowan

In the work, Nietzsche discusses the thought of Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides and Thales. He had intended to further include Democritus, Empedocles and Socrates but the book was abandoned and ends immediately after discussion of Anaxagoras.

Preliminary Reading:

Online biography of Nietzsche

A short introduction to Presocratic philosophy

Main Reading:

Philosophy In The Tragic Age Of The Greeks: UK USA Online E-text

Optional Further Reading:

Introducing Nietzsche - Laurence Gane UK USA

Illustrations on every page, easy to read text and underlying subtle humour make the inexpensive 'Introducing...' series a popular choice amongst those approaching a thinker for the first time.

The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and the Sophists - translated by Robin Waterfield UK USA Online E-text

This volume contains translations of all the most important fragments of the Presocratics and Sophists, and of the most informative testimonia from ancient sources, supplemented by lucid commentary. The online page contains translations of all the Preoscratic fragments.

Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction - Catherine Osborne UK USA

A short introduction to Presocratic thought.

The Presocratic Philosophers - G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven & M. Schofield UK USA

Beginning with a long and extensive introduction surveying the predecessors of the Presocratics, this book traces the intellectual revolution initiated by Thales in the sixth century B.C. to its culmination in the metaphysics of Parmenides and the complex physical theories of Anaxagoras and the Atomists in the fifth century. A more expensive volume, though widely available in libraries and heralded as the definitive treatment of the subject.

 

[ARC150]

Thank you, Nile577, for supplying the framework for the reading to be discussed. Although I managed a formal degree in Philosophy, I am continually amazed (read: humbled) by the dearth of information said education provided. I originally pursued academic philosophy because I found myself, time and again, seated within the library's shelves of philo-journals...and I figured that professors would provide a much needed guidance through the works I was reading. In the end, this was not the case.

I say all that to say this:

Nietzsche's writings seem to me to be the common man's view of the world (if the common man was well-read and intelligent, but isolated from those who might better-know the nuances of philo-thought).

As such, I would encourage anyone unfamiliar with his works to espouse their views on the subject-matter at hand - regardless of their knowledge of Nietzche...for he is the common man.

And that said, we come to one of the aforementioned philosophers:

Anaxagoras

This gentleman piqued my interest in the way that Democritus did:
Before the concept of a Scientific Method, such intelligents were left to their own unsubstantiated reasonings as to the the basic construct of the universe - yet, they managed to put forth a conceptualization of the order of matter that still holds true.

Although this may be seen as off-topic for Nietzche, I am (as a preamble of sorts) interested in what people think of the concept of Matter and Void.

That is, do you see anything incorrect with the idea that there are only two elements in the universe: That-which-is-matter and that-which-is-void?

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't agree that Nietzsche was like the common man at all.
Reading the introduction to The Birth of Tragedy

Three crucial elements in Nietzsche's intellectual make-up at the period when he was writing BT are very clearly apparant in the work itself. His training as a classical scholar engendered a profound love of Greek literatature, equally of Homer and of the great tragedians of the fifth century BC, as well as a lifelong fascination with the philosophers, especially the pre-Socratics."
Nothing common in that - on the contrary rather elitist. And the whole Superman concept could hardly be more elitist. Given that man should be overcome, he obviously wasn't one to identify with the lower orders.

Nietzsche was a man before his time. His works were not appreciated when they were written, but only later. He himself came to realise this after the vicious reception that Birth of Tragedy recieved from academics. BT is written in the form of an academic essay, a form which Nietzsche consequently ditched. He was naive in not realising the impact that BT would have on the establishment. Later he became a freelancer and, as an outsider, now consciously wrote works intended to shake the world to its foundations - which his works did, belatedly.

"...Let us face facts: the people have triumphed -- or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them -- and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the ethics of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The 'redemption' of the human race (from the lords, that is) is well under way; everything is rapidly becoming Judaized, or Christianized, or mob-ized -- the word makes no difference...."
[The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956, pp.169-170]

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...nietzsche+common+man&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=4

 

[Nile577]

Norsemaiden: I think your disagreement comes from a slight misinterpretation. In my view, what ARC meant was that Nietzsche writes very clearly and, while his ideas are often misunderstood, his language is easily comprehensible by the lay person. In that sense, he is accessible to the 'common man' in his form, even if he is likely to prove unpalatable in his message, offering (within the context of his thought) a vilification of the ressentiment which allows the 'common man' power.

Hmm, this thread was pretty quiet. I think people are understandably too busy to study something on top of work/college etc. Nevertheless, I'd like to press on with it, even it turns out I post thoughts alone for now. I'd like to try and make these threads places to collect notes as well as thoughts, so forgive my rather selfish postings of explanatory material I've written in an attempt to order my notes.

I will post some of my thoughts over the next few days. I feel rather awkward about posting large chunks of text for the simple fact that I don't wish to intimidate people through volume, especially when I am a relative beginner in the field (I knew next to nothing about the specific Presocratics before reading this text). Please understand that these posts are speculative and should not be taken as in any way authoritative or informed. The purpose of these threads is not to yield something ‘academically’ sound but to consider new ideas in a friendly environment – mistakes will be, and should be made.

I think I'll post my notes on the five philosophers Nietzschse discusses and then, following each, my thoughts on his discussion and my general opinion. The former part will, I fear, be quite jejune and those wishes to skip diversionary 'historical interest' would do well to pass them over. I am a great believer that ideas are far more important than their medium and obsession over the latter leads to academic pedantry.

If anyone else did manage to read this or wants to share thoughts please feel free to do so below. Even a short paragraph saying why you liked or disliked it might be a means to opening discussion.

Ach, enough rambling. I will start the December thread (Plato's Republic) soon.

ARC: I hope to engage with your question when I come to Anaxagoras.

 

[speed]

Thanks for the excellent posts Nile. You know, i m glad you're keeping this up, as even I've decided its terrifically difficult to post on a thread where no one responds, much less even reads the book (not that I blame them).

 

[Nile577]

I think I'll change this from 'Book of the Month' to book of the moment, or something similar. That way there is no timelimit. Given the format, a longer period than a month is necessary to dedicate a reasonable amount of text-time to something. I/we can just move on to another book when we feel like it. I'd like to finish posting on Nietzsche's Philosophy in the Tragic Age, so I'll leave that thread as a sticky for now.

 

[MURAI]

I went through this last month, but I am going to reply now. Thanks for the link and your essays.