I find Neitzsche's distinction between the Apollinian and the Dionysian helpful at least when thinking about Schopenhauer's idea of music. Schopenhauer's idea of will and representation was a little difficult to understand, and I feel like Neitzsche made it easier to understand by bringing in the ideas of Apollinian and Dionysian arts. I think I mostly agree with Neitzche at some level, that music affects us in ways that other arts don't, and it makes sense that it should be put on the abstract side with feelings and such, instead of actual things concrete things like the Apollinian. It gets a little confusing, though, that epic poems, for instance, should be put on the Apollinian side, when they are put to music. And so although the general idea might be helpful, there are certain things about what Neitzche is saying that I think just complicates matters more.
I also was confused about poems being put on both the Apollinian and the Dionysian. I especially don't understand why the lyric poetry is put on the Dionysian. I find his reasons in distinguishing between what falls under each category confusing.
ReplyDeleteI find Neitzsche's distinction between the Apollinian and the Dionysian helpful at least when thinking about Schopenhauer's idea of music.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with what you're saying here.
With the putting an Epic to music I do myself at least understand why it would be Apollinian. The music is mainly background to possibly amplify what the Epic is about, which also goes into what Schopenhauer is saying. He wouldn't consider an Epic that music is put to as "Music". Hence why I feel as you said Neitzsche makes Schopenhauer easier to understand.