Jonathan Langseth Hty499 Lang The Boundaries of the Horizon

In what follows we will compare a relationship of key concepts expounded upon by Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy (BT) and On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life (OADHL). At the outset it must be noted that the explicit intent of each text is different, the first deals with aesthetics and the second history. But both have a more encompassing question in common, and this is the question of values, or, more specifically, with values for life. In each text Nietzsche uses a triad of concepts to work through his thoughts: in BT we find the Apollinian, Dionysian, and Attic Tragedy; in OADHL we find the historical, unhistorical, and superhistorical. It is these six concepts that we will compare and contrast. Let us begin with a brief exposition of the set of concepts from each text respectively. In BT Nietzsche describes the Apollinian as the art of sculpture, as imagistic, the beautiful illusion, a dream-state, which affords an interpretation of life. The Dionysian Nietzsche depicts as being the art of music, non-imagistic, intoxication, self-forgetfulness. The Apollinian is the artist; the Dionysian is the artist become work of art: He himself now walks about enchanted, in ecstasy, like the gods he saw in his dreams (BT, 37). Attic Tragedy is a synthesis of these two concepts that consumes the audience into the work of art. In OADHL Nietzsche portrays both the historical and the unhistorical in their most extreme states, likening the historical to a person unable to forget anything, and the

unhistorical as an animal. Of the purely historical Nietzsche writes: Take as a extreme example a man who possesses no trace of the power to forget, who is condemned everywhere to see becoming: such a one no longer believes in his own existence, no longer believes in himself (OADHL, 9), and of the unhistorical: In this way the animal lives unhistoricallyit does not know how to dissimulate, hides nothing, appears at every moment fully as what it is (OADHL, 9). Although not as easily delineated as a synthesis of the historical and unhistorical (but I will argue that it is in fact a synthesis), the superhistorical Nietzsche deems as that for whom the world is complete and achieves its end at every moment, and a state in which the past and present are one and the same (OADHL, 13). Before exploring these concepts any further we need to introduce what Nietzsche calls the horizon. The horizon is the limit or extent to which a certain life outlook, such as the previously mentioned concepts yield, aids in the growth of life, and past which becomes a detriment. We will find that this idea of the horizon plays a crucial role in the advantage and disadvantage of each of the concepts under discussion. I would like to now compare concepts from each text with one another in order to ascertain to what extent these texts cross paths. I will first present a comparison between (1) the Apollinian and historical, (2) the Dionysian and unhistorical, and finally (3) Attic Tragedy and the superhistorical. After this I return to the idea of a horizon, and how it plays a role in determining the product of these related concepts. (1) The most obvious congruency between the Apollinian and the historical is that they are each a means by which to interpret life, the Apollinian affords an aesthetic interpretation and the historical interprets the present in terms of the past. But both

concepts in their abstract pure forms produce merely a spectator of the present: the Apollinian by viewing the world through symbolic, dream images, and the historical by experiencing the world from underneath the weight of the past (OADHL, 9). In other words the purely Apollinian states it is that as opposed to it is this, while the purely historical states it was as opposed to it is. In both cases there is an immediate detachment from the present moment. Yet in BT and OADHL Nietzsche argues that the Apollinian and the historical are necessary for life. With Apollinian dream images an individual or society is a close and willing observer, for these images afford him an interpretation of life, and by reflecting on these processes he trains himself for life (BT, 34), and with the historical only through the power to use the past for life and to refashion what has happened into history, does man become man (OADHL, 11). (2) Although both the Apollinian and history outlooks are essential for human life, they are not sufficient. Something more in needed for action, for engagement with the present and this is where we find the commonality between the Dionysian and unhistorical outlooks. While the Apollinian and historical give an interpretation for life, the Dionysian and unhistorical give an affirmation of life. This is accomplished, in a somewhat paradoxical manner, by the subsumption of self into the moment, by selfforgetfulness. In BT Nietzsche calls this intoxication and in OADHL the ability to forget. From the aesthetic vantage point the intoxication occurs when the audience becomes part of the work of art, forgetting themselves, being in the moment. From the vantage point of history the audience likewise ceases to exist, abstaining from reflection, acting in the present. (3) With Attic Tragedy and the superhistorical we find a synthesis of the

previously discussed outlooks. While the Dionysian and unhistorical are necessary for life they do not raise the individual or society above the status animals, which reason demands of us. For this we require the Apollinian and historical. Only with an interpretation of life, through historical reflection and symbolic imagery, can we rise up above of the present moment and meet the self-inflicted demands of reason, which we find in the individual as the need for personal growth and in society as a whole in the need for social structure. Yet to say Yes to this challenge, to say Yes in the midst of suffering inflicted upon us by nature, and proceed with our own demands for growth and order, we need the chaotic intoxication of Dionysian frenzy and the unhistorical state of pure being. Attic Tragedy Nietzsche calls the common goal of both the tendencies of the Apollinian and Dionysian (BT, 47). Symbolic imagery and Greek drama gave an interpretation of life by which the Greeks were able to come to grips, albeit through beautiful illusions, with the harsh reality of existence. With the addition of dithyrambic choruses praising Dionysus in which, through presentation and positioning of the audience in relation to the actors, the audience forgets the fact that a drama is in fact occurring, forgets they are in fact the audience of a work of art, and becomes part of the work of art which has the intention of generating an understanding of the world. Without this subsumption of the audience into the work of art the understanding one may have gathered from the drama would not be experienced, would not be lived, and therefore would remain superficially inapplicable to life. By engaging the audience, creating the birth of tragedy, the symbolic expressions are then not only understood, but felt, experienced, lived, and hence always already applied to life. The objective

interpretations become subjective experiences. Similarly, the remembrance of history enables the individual or society to interpret the present moment in relation to the past. Simply put, we learn from our experiences. But to dwell on past experiences is not to live in the present. Rather we need history to refrain from the repetition of past errors and to know what course of actions in the present will produce desired outcomes in the future. A synthesis of healthy, advantageous historical interpretation with the ever-existent unhistorical person is what I interpret the elusive superhistorical concept of OADHL to be. In this synthesis the major concept is the unhistorical for, all acting requires forgetting and without forgetting it is quite impossible to live at all (OADHL, 10). Although a purely unhistorical being is no more than an animal grazing in the herds, and purely historical being is a contradiction in terms for history is forever becoming. With the superhistorical we have a synthesis of the becoming of history with the being of the present, the past and present are now one and the same (OADHL, 13), but in a manner which guides the eye away from becoming and toward that which gives existence an eternal and stable character, for Nietzsche, toward art and religion (OADHL, 62). In order to occur these syntheses are dependent upon boundaries of the horizon. What is meant by this is that a certain ratio between the Apollinian and Dionysian, and the historical and unhistorical, must be met and this is dependent upon the conditions of an individual or society. The purely Dionysian and unhistorical states are completely animalistic, the first in a rapturous intoxication, and the second as the constant bliss of ignorance, both due to the loss of self-awareness. But our ability to reason creates a demand for more than this. We demand of ourselves to create order, to live by self-

inflicted codes. These codes are derived from our fears, desires and histories and from them we create the world around us. One is much more of an artist than one knows (BGE, 105). Amidst the sufferings and fears stirs the need for art and history for life, as an affirmation of life in spite of its hardships; we demand more than happiness, more than the animalwe demand meaning and purpose to exist. It is from this demand that art and history both sprout forth. But too much of either demand is a cancellation of life, a constant becoming and hence never-being. To be we must live wholly in the present, we must forget the past; to become what we demand of ourselves we must create our present out of the pastwe must be artists and works of art. The degree to which one can consume and utilize history and works of art for the creation of meaning depends upon ones ability, capability, to withstand the weight of the past (OADHL, 9). This weight is a pull of gravity towards becoming. Nietzsche calls the factor that determines the ability to use this weight the plastic power of a man, a people, a culture defining it as the power distinctively to grow out of itself, transforming and assimilating everything past and alien, to heal wounds, replace what is lost ad reshape broken forms out of itself (OADHL, 10). The degree of plastic power an individual or society has is the limit, the horizon, of our ability to benefit from both works of art and history. If our demand of history and art exceeds our horizon we become enslaved to them in that they create us, and not we them. The horizon is thus the ability to live life as a willed interpretation of the past and to use this interpretation, as an artist or community of artists, to compose ones own present. And in order to live in the present, the artist must be sublimated into his or her work of art. Works Cited.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Trans. Pete Preuss. Indianpolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1980.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.