Sara A.

Formentin HT24 W1

What does Nietzsche mean when he asserts that ‘nur als ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt
gerechtfertigt ist’?

The purpose of this essay is to elucidate the meaning of the following statement: “nur als
ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt gerechtfertigt ist”. I will do so by explaining that Die
Geburt der Tragödie is not merely a “genealogy” – that is, a historical reconstruction - of the birth of
tragedy, nor merely an invitation to re-evaluate the tragic form and re-enact it according to Greek
canons, but that it is most of all a metaphor for Nietzsche’s first metaphysical account.

The quotation in question can only be found in the 1886 edition of Die Geburt der Tragödie, whose
subtitle is “Griechentum und Pessimismus” (The 1872 edition has a different subtitle, 'aus dem
Geiste der Musik', making the full title 'The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music'. The reason for
the change of subtitles will be explained later.). The second edition of GT1 is, as Nietzsche clearly
writes, an attempt at self-criticism, as Nietzsche disagrees with his younger self on two particular
aspects. Firstly, he believes that the first edition of GT was poorly written and lacked logical
argumentation, as he clearly writes: „…heute ist es mir ein unmögliches Buch, — ich heiße es
schlecht geschrieben, schwerfällig, peinlich, bilderwüthig und bilderwirrig, gefühlsam, hier und da
verzuckert bis zum Femininischen, ungleich im Tempo, ohne Willen zur logischen Sauberkeit, sehr
überzeugt und deshalb des Beweisens sich überhebend, misstrauisch selbst gegen die Schicklichkeit
des Beweisens…“2. But most importantly, the mature Nietzsche no longer sees Richard Wagner, his
previous inspiration, as a potential renovator of tragedy and promoter of the German spirit.

What nevertheless remains unchanged in the fourteen years between the two editions is Nietzsche’s
aesthetical conception of the world, which is closely tied to his understanding of the birth of tragedy.
Additionally, his belief that tragedy was born from the spirit of music remains unchanged. I will now
proceed to outline how and why, according to Nietzsche, Athenian tragedy (that of Aeschylus,
Sophocles and Euripides, to an extent) was born.

Throughout his analysis, Nietzsche comes to the conclusion that tragedy was born out of the spirit of
music in the sense that music, and especially out of the Dionysian dithyramb (whose development
probably dates back to the second millennium b.C, according to Silk and Stern), was staged before
the dramatic part of the tragedy (i.e., the staging of the story by the actors). The Dionysian dithyramb
is an Ancient Greek form of choral lyric poetry that narrates the adventures of Dionysus, which then
went on to narrate the vicissitudes of other characters as well. The choir, formerly made up of fifty
choristers, was arranged in a circle and accompanied by tumultuous dances and music. So,
essentially, the dithyrambic choir was a mix of music, dance and lyrical poetry, and Nietzsche believes
that this particular kind of music is the exact representation of the noumenon (more on this later).
However, as Silk and Stern carefully reconstruct, around the end of VI b.C. a new element was
introduced into the original core of tragedy, namely what Nietzsche calls the “Apolline” element.
What is generally meant by Apolline in GT is everything that is artistic in a plastic sense, such as
sculptures, everything that can be carefully individuated and defined; for this reason, Apollo is

considered the god of the principium individuationis. Nietzsche writes: „Ja es wäre von Apollo zu
sagen, dass in ihm das unerschütterte Vertrauen auf jenes principium und das ruhige Dasitzen des in
1
I will use GT instead of the full title “Die Geburt der Tragödie” for the sake of brevity.
2
GT, Versuch einer Selbstkritik, § 3
Sara A. Formentin HT24 W1

What does Nietzsche mean when he asserts that ‘nur als ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt
gerechtfertigt ist’?
ihm Befangenen seinen erhabensten Ausdruck bekommen habe, und man möchte selbst Apollo als
das herrliche Götterbild des principii individuationis bezeichnen, aus dessen Gebärden und Blicken
die ganze Lust und Weisheit des ‚Scheines‘, sammt seiner Schönheit, zu uns spräche.“ 3 According to
Nietzsche, then, Apolline art is that which allows theo setting of clear boundaries (hence the
“individuatio”) – for example, between an individual and another -, and the art of pleasant and wise
appearance. So what is in practice, in the context of tragedy, the Apolline element? And why does it
consist of pleasant and wise appearance?

The Apolline element that is introduced alongside the Dyonisian chorus is nothing more than the
acted and spoken part of the Athenian tragedy, and it is an element of pleasant and wise appearance
because it allows the spectator to make the true meaning of life more bearable. In fact, according to
the early Nietzsche who had been deeply influenced by Schopenhauer’s philosophy, the need for an
Apolline element in tragedy stems from the fact that the noumenon is nothing more than a blind
force, what Schopenhauer calls “will to life”, that has no purpose, and thus it follows that life itself
has no real purpose. As Silk and Stern explain: “There was a doctrinal attraction [originating from
Schopenhauer’s philosophy] … the recognition, behind our illusory world of an ultimate reality that
brings no joy, no good, no providence, no ordained meaning … Only a blind will-to-exist fills the
universe, and the only salvation from it lies in the surrender of the individual will through self
denial”.4

This is, of course, a rather bleak vision, and if men were to immerse themselves in the truth of this
vision, it is likely that the human race would not last long. “Elendes Eintagsgeschlecht, des Zufalls
Kinder und der Mühsal, was zwingst du mich dir zu sagen, was nicht zu hören für dich das
Erspriesslichste ist? Das Allerbeste ist für dich gänzlich unerreichbar: nicht geboren zu sein, nicht zu
sein, nichts zu sein. Das Zweitbeste aber ist für dich — bald zu sterben“5 :this is what Silenus says
about the true nature of mankind. Hence why the Apolline element is added: the actors and the
poetic part of tragedy enable men to escape the true, depressing meaninglessness of life, which on
the other hand is represented by the Dyonisian element, the dithyrambic chorus. In summary, the
perfect Athenian tragedy is the one that entails a noumenical, Dionysian element -the lyric chorus –
and a phenomenological element, the drama itself, which acts as a sort of mediator between the
harsh truth of life and a life worth living. The perfect Athenian tragedy is constituted by a careful
balance of the Dionysian and the Apolline element.

Then why does Nietzsche claim that the being of the world is only justified as an aesthetic
phenomenon? Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that the being of the world is justified as the
Schopenhauerian will-to-exist? Let us consider the following claim: „Sie [die Musik] erscheint als
Wille, das Wort im Schopenhauerischen Sinne genommen, d.h. als Gegensatz der ästhetischen, rein
beschaulichen willenlosen Stimmung. Hier unterscheide man nun so scharf als möglich den Begriff

des Wesens von dem der Erscheinung: denn die Musik kann, ihrem Wesen nach, unmöglich Wille
sein, weil sie als solcher gänzlich aus dem Bereich der Kunst zu bannen wäre — denn der Wille ist das

3
GT, § 1
4
Nietzsche on Tragedy; Nietzsche and his early interests, M.S. Silk and J.P. Stern
5
GT, § 3
Sara A. Formentin HT24 W1

What does Nietzsche mean when he asserts that ‘nur als ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt
gerechtfertigt ist’?
an sich Unaesthetische —; aber sie erscheint als Wille.“ What this quotation reveals, is that while it is
true that -Dionysian- music is strictly connected with the will, it is merely a representation of it, and
being a representation, music is still a phenomenon. To better understand this concept, we could
reformulate the claim in the title as follows: “nur als ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt
erträglich ist”, namely the being of the world is only bearable as an aesthetic phenomenon. This
interpretation actually aligns with Came’s, according to which, while it is true that, at least at this
stage, Nietzsche believes that there is an underlying noumenon constituted by the Schopenhauerian
will to exist, this truth is inaccessible by human beings. Only the Athenians of the 6th century B.C., a
particularly sophisticated society of “masters” according to Nietzsche, managed to come very close
to immersing themselves in the noumenon, thanks precisely to Dionysian music. Came writes: “The
argument … is that … both in the early and the later works illusion is a necessary condition of the
affirmation of life. The position of the later Nietzsche is basically the position of The Birth of Tragedy:
one must falsify – whether by evasion or by explicit falsehood – the horrors of life to some degree in
order to affirm it.”6

This thesis is obviously consistent with Nietzsche’s own claim, namely that the being of the world is
only justified (i.e., bearable) as an aesthetic phenomenon, namely the phenomenon of Dionysian
music, in the case of the Greeks. It must also be noted, however, that this claim is utterly inconsistent
with Nietzsche’s perspectivism, a theory (alluded at to in Nietzsche’s last works such as the
Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols) which holds that there is no one truth: if Nietzsche
were a true perspectivist, as one might rightly think after reading his later writings, then he should
not believe in a noumenal reality that must be 'endured' and thus mediated by aesthetic instruments
such as music or Apollonian representations.

Leaving the problem of perspectivism aside, let us turn back to Came's theory, according to which a
certain degree of mediation is crucial in order to endure the harsh reality of life. Nietzsche writes:
„Dieser ungeheuere Gegensatz, der sich zwischen der plastischen Kunst als der apollinischen und der
Musik als der dionysischen Kunst klaffend aufthut, ist einem Einzigen der großen Denker in dem
Maasse offenbar geworden, dass er, selbst ohne jene Anleitung der hellenischen Göttersymbolik, der
Musik einen verschiedenen Charakter und Ursprung vor allen anderen Künsten zuerkannte, weil sie
nicht, wie jene alle, Abbild der Erscheinung, sondern unmittelbar Abbild des Willens selbst sei und
also zu allem Physischen der Welt das Metaphysische, zu aller Erscheinung das Ding an sich
darstelle.“ The author here explains (again under the strong, undeniable influence of Schopenhauer)
that many intellectuals – includedincluding, indeed, Schopenhauer – had already understood that
music is a superior representation compared to the Apolline, classic representation of reality. In
simpler words, he believes that music as a representation of the will gets much closer to the actual
perception of noumenal reality -i.e., the blind will to exist - than the Apollonian representation.
Precisely for this

6
The Oxford Handbook of Nietzsche ed by. K. Gemes and J. Richardson; The themes of affirmation and illusion
in The Birth of Tragedy and beyond, D. Came
Sara A. Formentin HT24 W1

What does Nietzsche mean when he asserts that ‘nur als ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt
gerechtfertigt ist’?
reason, as we have seen, the Apollonian becomes necessary in the context of Greek tragedy: the
latter in fact helps man to interface with noumenal reality from a more detached, and therefore less
painful, point of view. As Came explains: “Thus, in tragedy, Nietzsche clearly thinks, we find a
significant cognitive insight as to the nature of the world and human life. But the fact remains that a
veil of illusion is draped over this truth, and it is only in virtue of this illusion that the experience of
tragedy is bearable at all. As Raymond Geuss succinctly puts it, ‘tragedy brings us as close as it is
possible to come close to the basic truth of things’, but not into direct contact with the truth itself.”
7
The direct contact with the noumenon, with the blind will-to-exist, would in fact, as Nietzsche
himself writes, bring humans to commit more and more suicides and massacres, since life is actually
nothing more than will-to-life and thus entails a great deal of suffering.

We therefore have the following reconstruction: the noumenal reality, even for the Nietzsche of
1886, is inaccessible, Dionysian art is the one that allows one to come closest to it, while Apollonian
art is still another type of useful mediation, as Dionysian music brings man perhaps a little too close
to the crudeness of reality. But how is it, then, that once the perfect balance between the
understanding of noumenal reality and its mediation - achieved through the development of Attic
tragedy - was reached, tragedy began to die? The cause, in short, is the development of Socratic
optimism, that inclination born with Socrates according to which knowledge is synonymous with
virtue, and everything can be explained and ‘reached’ by human knowledge. This is of course at odds
with the pre-Socratic tendency to somehow detach oneself from the unreachable and painful
noumenal truth, and now we can understand the new subtitle of the second version of GT,
Griechentum und Pessimismus: thanks to this new subtitle, Nietzsche juxtaposes the Socratic
optimism which leads to a tendency to want to get closer and to comprehend the reality of things
(an ascetic tendency, as he will explain in Genealogy of Morals, for the will to truth is equally shared
by the ‘socratic’, optimistic scientist and by the religious ascetic priest) to the ancient pessimism,
namely that tendency to go as close as possible to the reality of things, while not immersing oneself
into it.

However, we must not forget that despite the optimism, Nietzsche still believes that the noumenon
is unreachable, thus the Socratic optimism is actually nothing more than a delusion. By rationalising
every aspect of life – thus by gradually eliminating the chorus in tragedy in favour of explanatory
prologues, like in some Euripidean tragedies -, Socratic men are actually moving further and further
away from the truth, creating more and more sophisticated forms of illusion, like in the case of
Christianity. In his attempt to at self-criticism, Nietzsche claims that: „In Wahrheit, es giebt zu der
rein ästhetischen Weltauslegung und Welt-Rechtfertigung, wie sie in diesem Buche gelehrt wird,
keinen grösseren Gegensatz als die christliche Lehre, welche nur moralisch ist und sein will und mit
ihren absoluten Maassen, zum Beispiel schon mit ihrer Wahrhaftigkeit Gottes, die Kunst, jede Kunst
in’s Reich der Lüge verweist, — das heisst verneint, verdammt, verurtheilt. Hinter einer derartigen
Denk- und Werthungsweise … empfand ich von jeher auch das Lebensfeindliche, den ingrimmigen
rachsüchtigen Widerwillen gegen das Leben selbst: denn alles Leben ruht auf Schein, Kunst,

7
ibid
Sara A. Formentin HT24 W1

What does Nietzsche mean when he asserts that ‘nur als ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt
gerechtfertigt ist’?
Täuschung, Optik, Nothwendigkeit des Perspektivischen und des Irrthums.“8 Essentially, Christianity is
according to Nietzsche a metaphor for the complete inability of facing the harshness of life on the
part of “weak” men, and Christianity is the enemy of life precisely because it marks as evil those
instincts which, according to Nietzsche, bring one closer to the noumenon, namely Dionysian
instincts.

Hence why Nietzsche so positively values Greek pessimism as opposed to the Socratic optimism: it
enabled men to live as closely to reality as possible thanks to a thin layer of mediation – i.e.,
Dionysian music -, and did not prevent them from indulging in those instincts whicho are considered
negatively by Christian, and thus by the Western European morality: “Ist Pessimismus nothwendig
das Zeichen des Niedergangs, Verfalls, des Missrathenseins, der ermüdeten und geschwächten
Instinkte? … Giebt es einen Pessimismus der Stärke? Eine intellektuelle Vorneigung für das Harte,
Schauerliche, Böse, Problematische des Daseins aus Wohlsein, aus überströmender Gesundheit, aus
Fülle des Daseins?“9, asks Nietzsche rhetorically.

Therefore, Nietzsche's explanation of the existence of the world as an aesthetic phenomenon is

founded on his metaphysical and moral understanding of the world. He believes that the world can
only be understood and endured as an aesthetic phenomenon, ideally as a combination of
Apollonian and Dionysian art. The noumenon, on the other hand, is unattainable. As per the author's
perspective, the ancient Greeks had the closest understanding of reality. Therefore, it is suggested to
follow their modus vivendi, which does not condemn Dionysian instincts like as/in the way that
Christianity does. Instead, it embraces them and seeks to further mediate them through Apollonian
representation. The creation of new realities for the Socratic sake of knowing reality, which is indeed
unknowable, should be avoided.

Bibliography:

Came, Daniel, The themes of affirmation and illusion in The Birth of Tragedy and beyond; The Oxford
Handbook of Nietzsche, ed. by Gemes/Richardson (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013)

Nietzsche, F.W., Die Geburt der Tragödie. Oder: Griechentum und Pessimismus; Kritische
Gesamtausgabe (KGA), available via http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/GT.

Stern, J.P., and M.S. Silk, Nietzsche on Tragedy (Cambridge, 1981)

This is generally good. You seek to tease out what the experience of tragedy might mean, and make
some insightful points. I am not sure about the language of detachment that you suggest for the
relationship to Dionysian insight. This sounds a little Stoic. Close, but not immersed sounds more like
the vision Nietzsche offers, but remember that N also describes this as a joyous affirmation and as a
semblance or spectacle in which we are completely involved, so immersive to a degree. The
processual sense is also strong: ‚wie das Dionysische und das Apollinische in immer neuen auf

8
GT, Versuch einer Selbstkritik, §5
9
GT, Versuch einer Selbstkritik, § 1
Sara A. Formentin HT24 W1

What does Nietzsche mean when he asserts that ‘nur als ästhetisches Phänomen das Dasein der Welt
gerechtfertigt ist’?
einander folgenden Geburten, und sich gegenseitig steigernd das hellenische Wesen beherrscht
haben‘ (§4).