Nietzsche's 'primordial unity' = Schopenhauer's Will?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

When Nietzsche uses the term “primordial unity” in The Birth of Tragedy, is this the same as Schopenhauer’'s ‘Will’? If it it is (which is my current guess) is there any differentiation? (This is my main question, for which I need an informed response from someone who studied the two philosophers in depth - please, no opinions.) Are these terms interchangeable (Will and ‘primordial unity’)?

Furthermore, did Schopenhauer simply neglect the creative, positive, Dionysian aspects of the Will that Nietzsche wants to attribute? Also, does it not seem that Nietzsche’s version is not simply a “blind striving or force,” but rather, carries within itself inherent teleological functions on an aesthetic level, vis-a-vis, Will-to-life? I know that is a strange thing to say considering that Nietzsche writes in The Birth of Tragedy, (Cambridge) pg. 35, “[…] Will is that which is inherently un-aesthetic […]”; but how can that be if he wants to attribute positively valued (in his opinion) Dionysian attributes to it?

Is Nietzsche’s view on Will (primordial unity?) a metaphysical claim?

2

Most of the distinctions that those kind of dudes make aren’t even thier own, and on top of that in the process of plagiarizing old ideas, they clutter up the vocabluary leading millions of teenagers scrambling to find the meaning of some minute detail which is probably only there as a result of bad writing.

3

Grrr… nobody replied in time, but my professor filled me in. The answer is yes, the terms are interchangeable. Depending on the translation, primordial unity is also interchangeable with primal oneness. Nietzsche even poetizes Schopenhauer’s conception of the Will into a “Witches brew,” to which he adds creative, artistic attributes. In other words, he throws pomegranates into the tragic brew. Since this is a reflection of Schopenhauer’s Will, it is a metaphysical claim. (For anyone interested, I must point out that this is Early Nietzsche, and that he turns against himself later on in his philosophy, how, specifically, I am not sure since I am only in the midst of study.)

4

Unfortunately, TUM, I’m afraid this place is a far cry from what it once was.

5

:frowning:

6

Out of all of Nietzsche’s works I am least familiar with The Birth of Tragedy so I’m probably confused on this, but it seems that a distinction does needs to be made between the seemingly “natural” unity that Nietzsche speaks of, and the metaphysical unity with the trans-phenomenal will that Schopenhauer speaks of. That is, Schopenhauer is working under the influence of transcendental idealism and the unity is metaphysical - blah blah blah we’re all objectified will - whereas Nietzsche’s Dionysian intoxication is to commune with nature as is, nature as a unified process, nature as a mechanistic process that we all participate in - not the unity of transcendental idealism. Will is something that exists within the world, not behind it.

Don’t get me wrong, his Apollonian/Dionysian distinctions reeks of Kant and Schopenhauer, he was obviously under their influence to some degree while writing this book. But what reason do you have to say that the primordial unity of Nietzsche is the same as Schopenhauer 's, other than similar imagery and a similar dualistic framework. I see that your professor concluded otherwise, would you be able to explain this to me?

7

Nothing is ever “what it once was.” Everything is always something new.

8

Yes, thank you, I’m aware of this.

9

You’re welcome.

10

Since it’s already too late, I’ll interject an uninformed opinion, regarding one aspect of your OP. That "will is that which is inherently un-aesthetic" may be the sense that the “arts” are that which are something akin to mere decoration - that art was often seen as connected with deceptions and additions to what is essential or real. For instance prior to the modern movement in architecture (Nietzsche died when this movement was just starting) a building’s decoration was considered “art” as opposed to its engineering. Montaigne spoke eloquently of “borrowed ornaments” in contrast to authentic living, which has little need of academic learning. In “Of Physiognomy” he says, “Certes, I have given unto publike opinion that these borrowed ornaments accompany me, but I meane not they should cover or hide me; it is contrary to mine intention, who would make shew of nothing that is not mine owne, yea mine owne by nature.” I think it is likely in this sense that Nietzsche means “primordial unity” and therefore doesn’t have metaphysical connotations.

11

Just finished my Midterm yesterday so I finally have a moment to respond.

Early Nietzsche: The Metaphysician
by his own admission

The Nietzsche of the Birth of Tragedy, his first major work, was written when he was only 27 years old. It is a romantic metaphsical work by his own admission in his “An Attempt at Self-Criticism” which he wrote sixteen years later: “[…] art […] is the true metaphysical activity of man; several times in the book [Birth of Tragedy] itself the provocative sentence recurs that the existence of the world is justified (gerechtfertigt) only as an aesthetic phenomenon. Indeed the whole book acknowledges only the artist’s meaning (and hidden meaning) behind all that happens – a ‘god’, if you will, but certainly only an utterly unscrupulous and amoral artist god who frees himself from the dire pressure of fullness and over-fullness, from suffering the oppositions packed within him, and who wishes to become conscious of his autarchic power and constant delight and desire, whether he is building or destroying, whether acting beignly or malevolently (8).” Many philosophers and even contemporary scholars such as, Columbia professor Richard B. Allison, have quiet erroneously attempted to reconcile the Nietzsche of the Birth of Tragedy with his later philosophy. Nietzsche, not only borrows Kant’s, and to a much larger degree, Schopenhauer’s, language, but also adopts Schopenhauer’s metaphysics. “These two very different drives [Apollonian and Dionysian] exist side by side, mostly in open conflict inherent in the opposition between them, an opposition only, apparantly bridged by the common term ‘Art’–until eventually by a metaphysical miracle of the Hellenic 'Will” they appear paired and, in this pairing, finally engender a work of art which is Dionysiac and Appoline in equal measure: Attic tragedy [14]." There is no doubt that Nietzsche’s view of the Dionysian in the Birth of Tragedy is entirely at one with Schopenhauer’s Will. Later on Nietzsche rejects the work, calling it his “Schopenhauerian work,” according to my professor Dr. Hicks, Chair of the Philosophy department at Queens College, author of numurous volumes on Nietzsche. Here are just a few more quotes, as I am constricted by time – class in 2 hours – I can only add a few of the ones I pulled out of the Birth of Tragedy. (But I will add pages for anyone intrested in exploring further.)

"If we add to this horror the blissful esctacy which arises from the inner most ground of man [The Dionysian; Will], indeed nature itself, whenever the breakdown of the principium individuationis [Schopenhauer’s term for space and time; principle of individuation], we catch a glimps of the essence of the Dionysiac, which is best conveyed by the analogy of intoxication [17]. "

“The more I become aware of those all powerful artistic drives in nature, […] (25).”

“[…] music symbolically to the original contradiction and original pain at the heart of the primordial unity and thus symbolizes a sphere which lies above and beyond all appearence (36).” Does this sound like Noumena to anyone else? In fact, Nietzsche means just that, as Schopenhauer’s Will is supposed to be Noumenal. Tsh-tsh, Kant’s rolling in his grave.

“The constrast between the geniune truth of nature and the cultural lie which pretends to be the only reality is like the constrast between the eternal core of things, the thing-in-itself, and the entire world of phenomena; and just as tragedy, with its metaphysical solace, points to the eternal life of the phenomenal world, the symbolism of the chorus of satyrs is in itself a metaphorical expression of that original relationship between the thing-in-itself and phenomena (41-42).”

“Dionysiac art, too, wants to convince us of the eternal lust and delight of existence; but we are to seek this delight, not in appearances but behind them. We are to recognize that everything that comes into being must be prepared for painful destruction; we are forced to gaze into the terrors of individual existence – and yet we are not to freeze in horror: its metaphysical solace [he means connecting with the primoridial unity through dis-individuation; think about being on LSD, drunk, loss of subjectivity, or Dance] tears us momentarily out of the turmoil of changing forms (80).” This is Paragraph 1, section 17, for anyone working out of Kaufman’s or any other translation.

Citation

Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy and other writings, edited by Raymond Guess and Ronald Speirs; Cambridge 1999.

If I had more time I would go into what is wrong with David B. Allison’s take on the Birth of Tragedy, but for now, this must suffice.

12

Nietzsche’s primordial unity is like his later devolved suggested concept of God.

13

In which works? When I get a little further (my class is undergrad/grad on Nietzsche; Schopenhauer was our entry point into him) I’ll be able to confirm/deny that claim. As of right now, I am not sure, although Nietzsche’s concept of the primordial unity (Dionysiac) sounds very much like a god, it must be noted, that it radically differs from any anthropomorphic traditional Judeo/Christian/Islamic conception of God. Perhaps, and this is pure conjecture, it would be similar to Spinoza’s conception. Of course, for the later Nietzsche, every conception in a diety symbolizes a false belief in a Beyond that stems from the negative aspects of existence (nihilism; primal pain; the wisdom of Silenus: better to not have been born, having been born, die quickly; tragic knowledge) which only devalues this world (even his primordial unity as an artist god at the heart of nature is a Beyond (metaphysics); art as theodicy [justification for evil in the world]).

So far I must say I love the development of his thought, and having just read On Truth and Lying in a Moral Sense I can already see how the post-modernists use him as a spring-board. For any poets, writers, dramatists, artists (or artistes as Nietzsche likes to say) The Birth of Tragedy is a phenomenal work! Psychologically stunning and absolutly breathtaking in its exploration of the artistic process. From this work it is clear to me that Nietzsche really is the artist-philosopher, or, maybe, poet-philosopher (thinking of Zarathustra). I am already dying with anticipation to finish reading his thought and see how Hiedegger develops/undermines it. That combination should be life-changing.

In the meantime good luck to everyone in their philosophical/artistic endeavors! :slight_smile:

14

Sauwelios pointed it out to me once. I can’t remember where it was. It may have even been unpublished (the will to power, nachlasse etc)

Glad to see you like what you’ve read so far. I fell in love with Nietzsche from the very first passage of his I read, which was the following (during a first year phil class):

‘In song and in dance man expresses himself as a member of a higher community; he has forgotten how to walk and speak and is on the way toward flying into the air, dancing. His very gestures express enchantment. Just as the animals now talk, and the earth yields milk and honey, supernatural sounds emanate from him, too: he feels himself a god, he himself now walks about enchanted, in ecstasy, like the gods he saw walking in his dreams. He is no longer an artist, he has become a work of art: in these paroxysms of intoxication the artistic power of all nature reveals itself to the highest gratification of the primordial unity.’

  • The Birth of Tragedy

I’d just got into raving at the time and, well, you can imagine. :stuck_out_tongue: :evilfun:

Just be aware that The Birth of Tragedy contains a number of ideas that Nietzsche later denied. Read the appropriate section of Ecce Homo to see what he had to say about it.

15

I’m very aware Impious. Funny thing too, when I read that passage I could only think of my own experiences of raving! :smiley:

My main interest right now is to see how Nietzsche changes the primordial unity/dionysiac essence, or heart of nature, into a force that is not inherently metaphysical. That should be very interesting to observe.

Btw,
What Pravalone said in your Nietzsche thread about the Overman, as of right now, sounds like an excellent commentary and analysis. He nailed the hammer.

16

In my reading, the “primordial unity” is the “primordial world-artist” mentioned at the end of Chapter 5 of The Birth of Tragedy. As Nietzsche says in his later Attempt at a Self-Criticism;

“Indeed, the whole book knows only an artistic meaning and crypto-meaning behind all events—a “god,” if you please, but certainly only an entirely reckless and amoral artist-god who wants to experience, whether he is building or destroying, in the good and in the bad, his own joy and glory—one who, creating worlds, frees himself from the distress of fullness and overfullness and from the affliction of the contradictions compressed in his soul.”
[ASC 5.]

The reason this artist-god is called a “primordial unity” is that all contradictions are compressed in his soul.