To illustrate this, he uses the legend of Socrates creating
music right before his death. He equates the scientific movement with Socrates
and his questions, and blames that for the end of art. The problem with this is
that science tries to solidify and clarify all phenomenon both in the outside
world and within the soul. However, once science enters the soul, it has no
choice but to become art itself. In this practice, it ultimately has no choice
but to fail. The music-making Socrates is the scientific world admitting its
inadequacy and turning to art.
Speaking as a biology major that enjoys art, I definitely
connect with this. What draws me to the two worlds is the clarity of the
scientific world, but that has its limits. As I said earlier, there are
elements that science cannot explain and only art can.
Later on, an older Nietzche went back and critiqued The Birth of Tragedy in “An Attempt at
Self-Criticism” where he basically pulls apart his whole work. One of the more
striking comments that he has is that he interpreted the world as being
governed by a wholly aesthetic god that made art the highest work and value. He
does present a pretty scathing review of science in BT, so I’d agree with this. Older Nietzche learned to appreciate
different forms of interpreting the world, not just artistic ones.
The takeaway from this that I see is that the older Nietzche
may not be wholly correct. The fact that I can see the point that the younger
Nietzche is driving indicates something, so he cannot be that far off base. But
also, there is merit to science, and limits to art. Both have to be
acknowledged if we are to get anywhere in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment