Talk:The Birth of Tragedy

message: "Dionysian ecstasy is balanced by Apollonian beauty while Apollonian beauty tempers Dionysian ecstasy."
This is just saying the same thing twice. The second half needs to be changed into something explaining how the Dionysian has a positive influence on the Apollonian.--Tchoutoye 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Apollonian and The Dionysian

message: The book has many references to Schopenhauer, as well as several long quotes from Schopenhauer's works. However, there are two sentences from Schopenhauer that may have had a strong influence on Nietzsche: 
This can be compared with Nietzsche:
Lestrade 14:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schopenhauer

message: Do modern classical scholars take any of this book seriously? (E.g. the Apollonian and Dionysian concepts) 152.23.84.168 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern views 

message: Nietzsche wrote this book when he was completely under the influence of Schopenhauer. As such, he had lost all interest in philology and his academic career. He wanted to be a philosopher and live as an independent thinker, in imitation of Schopenhauer. With this book, he effectively removed himself from academia by creating the conditions that forced himself to assume the existence of an isolated, extremely serious philosopher who could live on a small university pension.Lestrade (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Torpedoeing himself

message: In the "The book" section, the following is written: "(Although Nietzsche would make a noticable break from Wagner later, on the grounds that his appeal to the idolation of christianity and its mummification of becoming was nihilistic and based upon a poor ontological alignment.)" This is incorrect and is typical of a person who has not read Schopenhauer. Nietzsche broke with Wagner because Wagner's Parsifal glorified Schopehauer's concept of denial of the will–to–live, which was in accord with the New Testament. Nietzsche opposed the denial of the will, which he believed was the result of sickness and decadence. Instead, he supported a vigorous, healthy affirmation of the will at all costs. This was evident throughout most of Nietzsche's working life. To say that Nietzsche broke with Wagner because of a "poor ontological alignment" is totally wrong.Lestrade (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break with Wagner

message: In the "The Book" section, the following appears: "Dionysian and the Apollonian (very loosely: reality undifferentiated by forms versus reality as differentiated by forms)." It may be more informative to change this to "Dionysian and the Apollonian (very loosely: the world as will versus the world as representation)."Lestrade (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Loosely translated

message: The following appears in the article: "More important influences include Hegel, whose concept of the dialectic underlies the tripartite division of art into the Apollonian, its Dionysian antithesis, and their synthesis in Greek tragedy." Nowhere in Nietzsche's book are there any references to Hegel and his supposed 3-step dialectic. The attribute of such a "more important influence" may be purely speculative and merely the opinion of a Wikipedia editor.173.61.223.136 (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that Hegel's "dialectic" was an important influence is a personal, unsubstantiated, subjective opinion. It seems to have no relation whatsoever to Nietzsche's book. Therefore, I will delete it from the "Influences" section.173.61.223.136 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Guesswork and speculation