This class, on the major texts in the history of critical theory in the West, was like a dense piece of chocolate cake. It was so rich and fascinating, which translated to a LOT of information...this was the most challenging Comparative Literature class I have ever taken, but what I gained from it is enormous. I now can see the influences of these great philosophers in almost everything I read, which is amazing! Professor Borch-Jacobsen lectured for two hours every Tuesday and Thursday, and I could not write fast enough! His explanations of these difficult texts were the only reason I fully understood them, and I am so grateful to professors like him.
Some texts we dissected:
Plato's Republic
Aristotle's Poetics
Plotinus' Reflections on Beauty
Longinus on the Sublime
Young on Genius
Diderot's Paradox of Acting
Burke and Kant on Aesthetics
Hegel's system of Logic, Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit
Nietzsche's Dionysian and Apollonian
Freud's psychoanalytic vs. Jung's analytic psychology
Structuralism: Saussure, Jakobsen
Post-Structuralism: Derride, Barthes
Some texts we dissected:
Plato's Republic
Aristotle's Poetics
Plotinus' Reflections on Beauty
Longinus on the Sublime
Young on Genius
Diderot's Paradox of Acting
Burke and Kant on Aesthetics
Hegel's system of Logic, Philosophy of Nature and of Spirit
Nietzsche's Dionysian and Apollonian
Freud's psychoanalytic vs. Jung's analytic psychology
Structuralism: Saussure, Jakobsen
Post-Structuralism: Derride, Barthes
C LIT 400 Final
Nietzsche states that, “art owes its continuous evolution to the Apollonian-Dionysiac duality” (629), where the Apollonian and Dionysiac represent antagonistic forces. The Apollonian illustrates that which appears in the light of day: the world of appearances, or the reality of sobriety. The Apollonian dream is a spectacle that is a beautiful experience only because it is at a distance. This echo’s Burke’s sublime—something vast, rugged and painful: producing strong delightful when the pain/danger is at a distance and removed. Nietzsche’s Apollonian protects us from the unbearable—the pure Dionysiac: “his Apollonian consciousness was but a thin veil hiding from him the whole Dionysiac realm” (632).
The Dionysiac can be explained by an intoxicative-induced trance, or the shattering of the principle of individuation by returning to “the one,” as the individual forgets himself completely. This echoes cathartic rituals and enthusiasmos, the state of being en-godded or divinely inspired. Thus, it is clear that Nietzsche did not agree with Plato as Plato degraded the importance of cathartic rituals/enthusiasmos. Plato spoke of a poets’ enthusiasmos as mere madness, pertaining to no real skill; the poet simply was a puppet in a mimetic chain of muse to poet to rhapsode/actor to audience. Mimetic poetry, to Plato, went against the just division of labour (one man for just one techné) and would introduce mimetic violence to a society. The poet, therefore, should only produce Dithyrambs, which are pure narratives. Contrastingly, Nietszche’s Dionysiac becomes a god (through enthusiasmos) and becomes one with the one: “the slave emerges as a free man” (630).
The Apollonian and Dionysiac, however, cannot be completely separated, as a pure Dionysiac experience would be death. The Tragedy represents the genre that reconciles the Apollonian and Dionysiac antagonists. The visual/Apollonian phenomena represents, in the Tragedy, shattering of individuation: the death of the hero brings the Dionysian truth at the center of Tragedy. The death of the hero is Dionysian, and as the audience projects itself onto him, the audience is able to “die” with him and understand the complete Dionysiac experience: they can experience what cannot be experienced. The audience is protected from the abyss by the Apollonian narrative/story—the hero dies in our stead. This reminds one of Aristotle’s Tragedy and its plot producing fear and pity, which thus is able to produce in the audience a catharsis of those very emotions within themselves.
Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy alludes to many of his predecessors’ ideas, and will live on to influence many others. The Apollonian and Dionysiac, finally reconciled, may represent the possibility of other (seemingly complete opposite) dualities being able to come together and produce something great.
Nietzsche states that, “art owes its continuous evolution to the Apollonian-Dionysiac duality” (629), where the Apollonian and Dionysiac represent antagonistic forces. The Apollonian illustrates that which appears in the light of day: the world of appearances, or the reality of sobriety. The Apollonian dream is a spectacle that is a beautiful experience only because it is at a distance. This echo’s Burke’s sublime—something vast, rugged and painful: producing strong delightful when the pain/danger is at a distance and removed. Nietzsche’s Apollonian protects us from the unbearable—the pure Dionysiac: “his Apollonian consciousness was but a thin veil hiding from him the whole Dionysiac realm” (632).
The Dionysiac can be explained by an intoxicative-induced trance, or the shattering of the principle of individuation by returning to “the one,” as the individual forgets himself completely. This echoes cathartic rituals and enthusiasmos, the state of being en-godded or divinely inspired. Thus, it is clear that Nietzsche did not agree with Plato as Plato degraded the importance of cathartic rituals/enthusiasmos. Plato spoke of a poets’ enthusiasmos as mere madness, pertaining to no real skill; the poet simply was a puppet in a mimetic chain of muse to poet to rhapsode/actor to audience. Mimetic poetry, to Plato, went against the just division of labour (one man for just one techné) and would introduce mimetic violence to a society. The poet, therefore, should only produce Dithyrambs, which are pure narratives. Contrastingly, Nietszche’s Dionysiac becomes a god (through enthusiasmos) and becomes one with the one: “the slave emerges as a free man” (630).
The Apollonian and Dionysiac, however, cannot be completely separated, as a pure Dionysiac experience would be death. The Tragedy represents the genre that reconciles the Apollonian and Dionysiac antagonists. The visual/Apollonian phenomena represents, in the Tragedy, shattering of individuation: the death of the hero brings the Dionysian truth at the center of Tragedy. The death of the hero is Dionysian, and as the audience projects itself onto him, the audience is able to “die” with him and understand the complete Dionysiac experience: they can experience what cannot be experienced. The audience is protected from the abyss by the Apollonian narrative/story—the hero dies in our stead. This reminds one of Aristotle’s Tragedy and its plot producing fear and pity, which thus is able to produce in the audience a catharsis of those very emotions within themselves.
Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy alludes to many of his predecessors’ ideas, and will live on to influence many others. The Apollonian and Dionysiac, finally reconciled, may represent the possibility of other (seemingly complete opposite) dualities being able to come together and produce something great.