From Wikipedia:
"In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche presented his theory of the ancient dualism between two types of aesthetic experience, namely the Apollonian and the Dionysian; a dualism between a world of the mind, of order, of regularity and polishedness and a world of intoxication, chaos, ecstasy. The Apollonian represented the rationally conceived ideal, whereas the Dionysian represented artistic conception proper, originating from man's subconscious. The analogy with the world of the Greek gods typifies the relationship between these extremes: two godsons, incompatible and yet inseparable. According to Nietzsche, both elements are present in any work of art. The basic characteristics of expressionism are Dionysian: bold colors, distorted forms, painted in a careless manner, two-dimensional, without perspective, and based on feelings (the child) rather than rational thought (the adult)."
I am going to be completely unoriginal and write something based on the entire Apollo-Dionysius contrast of moods. On that note, reading Nietzche texts makes my head hurt.
All this reading up on the Nothingness that Modernism consists of makes my head hurt. I find it disturbing that post-modern elements dominate society (from what I can see as of late)--does that mean that there really is nothing out there, or is it all just in our heads, and there is in fact something, but we choose to ignore it because we choose to define our own realities for our convenience? Conformity keeps the masses in order. Without conformity and with very much separate, very much individual mindsets, comes what? Individuality should be encouraged but not to the point of anarchism from the inherent will/goal of the soul.
What are definitions? Shouldn't we live by definitions? Is the box even there? What do you mean, "think out of the box"? What if the box doesn't exist, but you think it exists for other people, so you make it exist for you, even if it isn't really there, and you find out that that's what they're all doing as well, they try to "imagine" the box because that's what they think everybody else is doing? Isn't that something that just goes with being human? If everybody imagines the box, then does that mean that the box is really there?
mwahahaha. xD
xx
The trouble about philosophers and philologists:
1. We just have to understand that some things are just not meant to be sciences.
2. You're in that tower (where is this analogy from again, La Torre?), you're surrounded by the rest of humanity--you are not within the throbbing masses of humanity though, you are detached, by this coldly logical study on the nature of things, all these definitions and statements and attempted wordings of some of the best things about being human--but y'know what, that's part of what makes it one of the best things about it, the fact that it's inexplicable yet it's there.
Which brings us back to the wanting to make it explicable in the first place, but you know what, it's a uselessly empirical argument, we're just going to keep going around and around if we talk about that because it is inexplicable, we're just going to have to accept that.
3. They're too insanely logical that they feel the need to explain everything around them, for themselves and the rest of humanity. Even if no one is asking but them themselves.
xD
5:31am. byebye.
