Episode Details

WATCH part 1: https://youtu.be/l_eMcosHDAc

Nietzsche assumed Richard Wagner's music and Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy were the products of an overflowing vitality, or a surplus of life. However, in the Joyful Science, he changes his mind. It was a mistake to think Wagner and Schopenhauer are a product of exuberance, rather, Wagner and Schopenhauer are a product of a lack of vitality.

Most notably in his work The Case of Wagner we find a long polemic that seeks to critique Wagner’s music, and with it, Schopenhauer’s philosophy. If there’s enough interest, we’ll do a separate video on Nietzsche versus Wagner. Comment below if you’re interested.

This video is not about criticism. In this follow-up video, we want to look at what kind of art this late Nietzsche considers good. If bad art procedes from a lack of vitality, what kind of art procedes from a surplus of vitality?

In the paragraph of the Joyful Science in question, Nietzsche drops four names:

“[Art may] proceed from gratitude and love:—art of this origin will always be an art of apotheosis, perhaps dithyrambic, as with Rubens, mocking divinely, as with Hafiz, or clear and kind-hearted as with Goethe, and spreading a Homeric brightness and glory over everything.”




--- Music in the video (CC)
Canon in D Major by Kevin MacLeod is is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0-licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100301

Artist: http://incompetech.com/

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices