Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Socrates as Tragic Hero
Some of the complications of Nietzsche's 'Socrates' category in Birth of Tragedy have already been discussed, but the most significant one might be historical fact itself. There seems to be consensus that the actual Socrates, as opposed to Plato's fictional mouthpiece, received a death sentence for asserting that he knows only that he does not know, thereby challenging the prevailing political myths of the day. Not merely does Nietzsche's characterization of the 'Socratic' as 'optimism' seem inappropriate, but as a socially corrosive figure, whose consequent death is preceded by his acceptance of his fate through some consoling vision or another, the category in Birth of Tragedy that seems most appropriate to Socrates is Tragic Dionysiac Hero. So, perhaps because Nietzsche, at this stage, is a relative Philosophical novice, under the influence of Schopenhauer, his treatment of Socrates in Birth of Tragedy is atypically sloppy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Don,
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to blog again and putting out Google alerts for other philosophy oriented blogs, and came up with yours. I'm going to "blog-roll" you and explore your site some more.
I've read what Nietzsche writes about Socrates in Twilight of the Idols, obviously much later in his career, but haven't read Birth of Tragedy...it's on my list. So I can't speak of that book, but it does seem likely that Socrates' belief in immortality and the afterlife, as depicted in the Phaedo and the Apology, would have rubbed Nietzsche wrongly. Also, Socrates/Plato believe in absolutes and objective truth (forms and all that). In the Republic (I think) Socrates says that if two people disagree about something, it's because one of them is wrong. In trying to move beyond the sophists, Socrates/Plato hoped to show truth does not just depend on strength (Thrasymachus' objection in Book 1 of the Republic) or on skilled argument, but existed independently and could be arrive at through dialectic. Nietzsche thinks dialectic is stupid and decadent, and he says as much in Twilight (..of the Idols...not the vampire book). Anyway, just taking a crack at it. I just wrote a Socrates vs. Nietzsche post over at http://themountainandthemarketplace.wordpress.com
and plan to write some more on this subject later. But likely, as you write, his assessment might have to do with being all of 24 or 25 when he completed this book. I'm eager to read this book (though not much interested in the Wagner stuff) to see what he says about Socrates.
You'll note that I draw a sharp distinction between the actual Socrates and the fictional mouthpiece of Plato. Accordingly, it is debatable whether or not the former in fact subscribes to a thesis such as the immortality of the soul, which Plato quite plainly does (see my earlier posting, "Socrates' Defense"). The modest point here is that on the basis of the Apology, which is usually regarded as historically accurate, Socrates could qualify as a Nietzschean Tragic Hero, especially since the most salient fact about him is his death. Also, very careful reading is required to distinguish Nietzsche the provocateur from Nietzsche the asserter of a doctrine, and to grasp exactly what he meant by 'Will to Power', e. g. the Nazi interpretation of him is grossly, and might I say, tragically, inaccurate. I do not believe that such careful reading is possible without thinking through his affirmation of Eternal Recurrence, with respect to which merely objectively examining Eternal Recurrence is inadequate, i. e. his affirmation of it is as signifcant as the theory itself.
ReplyDelete