Nietzsche, Plato, and Aristotle on Philosophy and Tragedy

Tragedy and philosophy appear to be natural enemies. By showing that the greatest human beings may suffer terrible misfortune, unjustly, and for reasons beyond our comprehension, tragedy seems to teach us that the world is out of joint, that it is fundamentally indifferent or hostile to our efforts to achieve happiness, justice, and understanding, and hence that it is fundamentally at odds with our deepest desires.

Philosophy, on the other hand, seems to teach that the pursuit of wisdom through reason alone is the greatest good for a human being, that reason is therefore capable of both understanding the world and of guiding us to happiness, and hence that the world is, at the very least, not opposed to our deepest desires. It is not surprising, then, that Socrates, the hero and in a sense the founder of the philosophic tradition, as a tradition of moral and political philosophy, would denounce “the tragic life” as one that is surrounded by a multitude of lies (Cratylus 408C7—8) and would insist that Homer, “the most poetic and first of the tragic poets,” be expelled from the most just political society, the one ruled by philosopher-kings (Republic 607a2—3).^{1 ^[106]} And it is not surprising that, when Nietzsche launched his attack on the tradition of philosophy, he did so in the name of tragedy.^{^[107]}

Yet, are philosophy and tragedy necessarily enemies? After all, even though Nietzsche attacks Socratic philosophy in the name of tragedy, he also calls himself a philosopher, indeed “the first tragic philosopher” (1969, 273 — emphasis in text). In the Gay Science, he suggests that Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which he regarded as his greatest work, is a tragedy (1974, 274; see also 347; 1969, 219—20).

Furthermore, even though Socrates issues a devastating attack on tragic poetry in the Republic, there are reasons for wondering whether that attack is as unconditional as it first seems.

For example, in Book X, Socrates argues that Homer, “the first teacher and leader of all these fine tragic things” (595c1-2), evidently lacks wisdom because he had no followers. “But Glaucon, if Homer were really able to educate human beings, and make them better because he is in these things capable not of imitating but of knowing, do you think that he wouldn't have made many companions and been honored and cherished by them?” (6θθc2-6).^{^[108]} Yet the very fact that, as Socrates says, Homer was the “teacher and leader of all these fine tragic things” (595c1-2) and of tragedy itself (598d7-e2), and that he was “the most poetic and first of the tragic poets” (6θ7a2-3), invites one to wonder whether the tragic poets — poets of such quality as Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides — were not followers of Homer and hence whether Homer may not have been, in accordance with Socrates' own criterion, wise. This thought is also supported by what Socrates says in the Apology. There he declares that the tragic poets “know nothing of what they speak” (22a8-c6). But he also goes on to affirm that “to associate with,” among others, “Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer” forever in Hades would be an “inconceivable happiness” (41a6-c4). Is it not reasonable to wonder, then, whether Socrates truly held the wisdom of Homer and the other tragic poets in such low esteem?

While Socrates issues a devastating attack on tragic poetry in the Republic, he also admits there that he has always loved such poetry, “since childhood,” and declares that he would be “delighted” and “glad” to hear a persuasive defense of it (595b9-c3, 6o6e1—608a5; see also 388e2-3; compare as well Apology of Socrates 22a8-c8 with 4θe4- 41c8). The philosopher Aristotle seems to supply just such a defense. For he argues that tragedy is itself philosophic, that it plays an important and even a crucial role in leading the soul to philosophy. The question arises, then, whether philosophy and tragedy are truly at odds. Is the teaching of tragedy as bleak as it first seems to be? Is the teaching of philosophy as hopeful?

<< | >>

↑

Source: Ahrensdorf P.J.. Greek Tragedy and Political Philosophy: Rationalism and Religion in Sophocles Theban Plays.New York, "Cambridge University Press", 2009, -206 p.. 2009

Nietzsche, Plato, and Aristotle on Philosophy and Tragedy

More on the topic Nietzsche, Plato, and Aristotle on Philosophy and Tragedy: